Cops p135 Pub

U.S.
Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series
No. 51
Pedestrian Injuries
and Fatalities
by
Justin A. Heinonen
John E. Eck
www.cops.usdoj.gov
Problem-Oriented Guides for Police
Problem-Specific Guides Series
Guide No. 51
Pedestrian Injuries and
Fatalities
Justin A. Heinonen
John E. Eck
This project was supported by cooperative agreement

#2005CKWXK001 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein
are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the Justice
Department’s official position. References to specific companies,
products, or services should not be considered an endorsement of
the product by the author(s) or the Justice Department. Rather, the
references are used to supplement discussion of the issues.
www.cops.usdoj.gov
ISBN: 1-932582-83-5
October 2007
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series
The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about

how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime
and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention
and to improving the overall response to incidents, not
to investigating offenses or handling specific incidents.
Neither do they cover all of the technical details about
how to implement specific responses. The guides are
written for police—of whatever rank or assignment—who
must address the specific problem the guides cover. The
guides will be most useful to officers who:
• Understand basic problem-oriented policing

principles and methods. The guides are not primers
in problem-oriented policing. They deal only briefly
with the initial decision to focus on a particular
problem, methods to analyze the problem, and means
to assess the results of a problem-oriented policing
project. They are designed to help police decide how
best to analyze and address a problem they have already
identified. (A companion series of Problem-Solving Tools
guides has been produced to aid in various aspects of
problem analysis and assessment.)
• Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the

complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to
spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and
responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before
responding helps you design the right strategy, one that
is most likely to work in your community. You should
not blindly adopt the responses others have used;
you must decide whether they are appropriate to your
local situation. What is true in one place may not be
true elsewhere; what works in one place may not work
everywhere.
ii Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities
• Are willing to consider new ways of doing police

business. The guides describe responses that other police
departments have used or that researchers have tested.
While not all of these responses will be appropriate to
your particular problem, they should help give a broader
view of the kinds of things you could do. You may think
you cannot implement some of these responses in your
jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many places, when
police have discovered a more effective response, they
have succeeded in having laws and policies changed,
improving the response to the problem. (A companion
series of Response Guides has been produced to help you
understand how commonly-used police responses work on
a variety of problems.)
• Understand the value and the limits of research

knowledge. For some types of problems, a lot of useful
research is available to the police; for other problems,
little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series
summarize existing research whereas other guides
illustrate the need for more research on that particular
problem. Regardless, research has not provided definitive
answers to all the questions you might have about the
problem. The research may help get you started in
designing your own responses, but it cannot tell you
exactly what to do. This will depend greatly on the
particular nature of your local problem. In the interest
of keeping the guides readable, not every piece of
relevant research has been cited, nor has every point been
attributed to its sources. To have done so would have
overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The references
listed at the end of each guide are those drawn on most
heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of research
on the subject.
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series iii
• Are willing to work with others to find effective

solutions to the problem. The police alone cannot
implement many of the responses discussed in the
guides. They must frequently implement them in
partnership with other responsible private and public
bodies including other government agencies, non-
governmental organizations, private businesses, public
utilities, community groups, and individual citizens. An
effective problem-solver must know how to forge genuine
partnerships with others and be prepared to invest
considerable effort in making these partnerships work.
Each guide identifies particular individuals or groups in
the community with whom police might work to improve
the overall response to that problem. Thorough analysis
of problems often reveals that individuals and groups
other than the police are in a stronger position to address
problems and that police ought to shift some greater
responsibility to them to do so. Response Guide No. 3,
Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems,
provides further discussion of this topic.
The COPS Office defines community policing as “a policing

philosophy that promotes and supports organizational
strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime
and social disorder through problem-solving tactics and
police-community partnerships.” These guides emphasize
problem-solving and police-community partnerships in the context
of addressing specific public safety problems. For the most
part, the organizational strategies that can facilitate problem-
solving and police-community partnerships vary considerably
and discussion of them is beyond the scope of these guides.
These guides have drawn on research findings and police

practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia.
Even though laws, customs and police practices vary from
country to country, it is apparent that the police everywhere
iv Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities
experience common problems. In a world that is becoming

increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be
aware of research and successful practices beyond the
borders of their own countries.
Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the research

literature and reported police practice, and each guide is
anonymously peer-reviewed by a line police officer, a police
executive and a researcher prior to publication. The review
process is independently managed by the COPS Office,
which solicits the reviews.
The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide

feedback on this guide and to report on your own agency’s
experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your agency
may have effectively addressed a problem using responses
not considered in these guides and your experiences and
knowledge could benefit others. This information will be
used to update the guides. If you wish to provide feedback
and share your experiences it should be sent via e-mail to
cops_pubs@usdoj.gov.
For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit

the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at www.
popcenter.org. This website offers free online access to:
• the Problem-Specific Guides series

• the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools
series
• instructional information about problem-oriented
policing and related topics
• an interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise,
• an interactive Problem Analysis Module
• a manual for crime analysts
• online access to important police research and practices
• information about problem-oriented policing
conferences and award programs.
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are
Michael S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate
Director) and Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director).
While each guide has a primary author, other project
team members, COPS Office staff and anonymous peer
reviewers contributed to each guide by proposing text,
recommending research and offering suggestions on
matters of format and style.
The project team that developed the guide series

comprised Herman Goldstein (University of Wisconsin
Law School), Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University),
John E. Eck (University of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott
(University of Wisconsin Law School), Rana Sampson
(Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm Weisel (North
Carolina State University).
Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and

Savannah, Georgia police departments provided feedback
on the guides’ format and style in the early stages of the
project.
Cynthia E. Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS

Office and research for the guides was conducted at the
Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University by Phyllis
Schultze. Suzanne Fregly edited this guide.
Contents vii
Contents
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
The Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
General Description of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Factors Contributing to Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Pedestrian Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Vehicle and Driver Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Special Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Locations/Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Physical Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Current and Previous Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Impact on the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Impact on Driver and Pedestrian Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Data, Information, and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
viii Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities
Responses to the Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Using a Process Model To Develop Specific Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Specific Responses to Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Pedestrian Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Vehicle and Driver Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Immediate Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Special Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Responses With Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Considering a Combined Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Appendix A: Summary of General Considerations and Responses to

Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Appendix B: Web Resources for Improving Pedestrian Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Appendix C: Developing a Comprehensive Response to Pedestrian-Vehicle Crashes 73
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

The Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities
The Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and

Fatalities
What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover
This guide examines the problem of pedestrian-vehicle

crashes resulting in injuries and fatalities. It reviews the factors
that contribute to such crashes. It then provides a series of
questions to help you analyze your local pedestrian injury and
fatality problem. Finally, it reviews responses to the problem
and what is known about them from evaluative research and
police practice.
Pedestrian injuries and fatalities are but one aspect of the

larger set of problems related to travel and road safety. This
guide addresses only the particular harms created by unsafe
pedestrian behavior, vehicle and driver factors, problematic
physical environments, and other special conditions. Related
problems not directly addressed in this guide include:
• vehicle-vehicle traffic crashes

• public intoxication
• aggressive driving
• drunken driving
• street racing
• speeding in residential areas
• traffic congestion.
Some of these related problems are covered in other guides in

this series, all of which are listed at the end of this guide. For
the most up-to-date listing of current and future guides, see
www.popcenter.org.
Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities
General Description of the Problem
Pedestrian-vehicle crashes are a major problem in the

United States. In 2003, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration reported that approximately 4,700 pedestrians
were killed and another 70,000 injured due to pedestrian-
vehicle crashes.1 On average, a pedestrian is killed in a traffic
collision every 113 minutes and injured every 8 minutes.2
Although only 8.6 percent of all trips are made on foot, 11.4
percent of all traffic deaths are pedestrians.3
The times and days pedestrians are most at risk of injury

differ from those when they are most at risk of death. Most
pedestrian injuries occur between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., with a
peak time between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m., whereas pedestrian
fatalities usually happen at night (i.e., between 5:30 p.m. and
11 p.m.).4 Most pedestrian-vehicle crashes take place on
Friday and Saturday with the fewest crashes occurring on
Sunday.5 It is possible that these temporal patterns correspond
with specific conditions. For instance, most pedestrian injuries
might occur between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. because overall vehicle
traffic increases during these hours as drivers commute home
from work. Furthermore, pedestrian fatalities that occur at
night could result from a combination of factors such as
drunken drivers, drunken pedestrians, and poor visibility.
Analysis of your community’s problem might reveal other
explanations for temporal patterns of pedestrian injuries
and fatalities. Finally, the majority of pedestrian injuries and
fatalities happen to males between the ages of 25 and 44.
Pedestrian-vehicle crashes also tend to concentrate at certain

places:6
• The majority of pedestrian-vehicle crashes (60 percent

in urban areas; 67 percent in rural areas) occur at places
other than intersections.
• Seventy-four percent of pedestrian-vehicle crashes occur

where no traffic control exists.
The patterns mentioned above are general and based on

research from several different communities. You should
study the particular patterns in your own community, as they
may vary from these general patterns.
Factors Contributing to Pedestrian Injuries and

Fatalities
Understanding the factors that contribute to your

community’s problem will help you frame your own local
analysis questions, determine good effectiveness measures,
recognize key intervention points, and select appropriate
responses.
No single factor is completely responsible for the problem of

pedestrian-vehicle crashes resulting in injuries and fatalities. A
combination of unsafe pedestrian behavior, vehicle and driver
factors, problematic physical environments, and other special
conditions all contribute to them.7 This list of factors is not
exhaustive, but instead highlights some common causes of
pedestrian-vehicle crashes that result in injuries and fatalities.
Local analysis may reveal unique situations, not on this

list, that you may need to address. Local analysis should be
based on the pedestrian-vehicle crash triangle (Figure 1).
This triangle is a modification of the widely used problem
analysis triangle (see www.popcenter.org for a description).
Simply stated, pedestrian-vehicle crashes occur when physical
environments allow pedestrians to come into contact with
moving vehicles. If this occurs repeatedly, then a pedestrian-
vehicle crash problem exists. Most such problems will be the
result of failures on all three sides of the triangle: pedestrians
who are inattentive or incapable of using the street safely;
drivers who operate in ways that make it difficult for them

to detect pedestrians in the road; and physical environments
that encourage unsafe pedestrian and/or driver behavior,
or fail to adequately separate pedestrians and vehicles. The
relative importance of each side of the triangle will vary from
problem to problem. Fixing any one side may reduce the
problems, in principle. Fixing more than one side should give
greater assurance that the response to the problem will work.
Figure 1 also lists multiple specific causes of pedestrian-

vehicle crashes along each side of the triangle, as well as a set
of special conditions you should consider. Each of these is
described next.
Vehicle & Driver Physical Environment

• Perception of risk (e.g., • Lack of crossing devices
alcohol comsumption, cell • Lack of midblock crossing
phone use, etc.) • Width of roads
• Speed of vehicle • Poorly timed signals
• Volume of traffic • Poor sidewalks
• Type of vehicle • Absence of sidewalks
• Capacity of sidewalks
Special Conditions
• Weather Pedestrian Behavior
• People with limited mobility • Pedestrian Jaywalking
• Occupational risks • Perception of risk
• Children and teens • Consumption of alcohol
• Shopping centers • Perception of crossing devices
• Construction • Speed and pace of life
• Major Highways • Speed of crossing devices
• One-way streets • Perception of enforcement risk
• Location of attractions • Unawareness of laws
• Unlawful street-vending • "Herd mentality"
Figure 1: Pedestrian-vehicle crash triangle and specific causes of crashes

Pedestrian Behavior
Unsafe pedestrian behavior is a major factor in pedestrian injuries

and fatalities. In a recent study of 7,000 pedestrian-vehicle crashes
in Florida, researchers discovered that pedestrians were at fault in
80 percent of these incidents.8 Similarly, in a U.K. study, pedestrian
behavior accounted for 90 percent of crashes where vehicle struck
a pedestrian.9
Pedestrian jaywalking. Specifically, jaywalking is often cited as

a poor pedestrian behavior that leads to pedestrian injuries and
fatalities. Jaywalking is a general term for any form of illegal street-
crossing by a pedestrian.10 There are several types of pedestrian
behavior that qualify as jaywalking:
• walking against a pedestrian walk signal

• crossing a street where there is no crosswalk (midblock
crossing)
• crossing a street outside of a marked crosswalk where one is
present
• walking on a street along with the traffic flow (ignoring
designated pedestrian pathways).
In addition to jaywalking, other unsafe pedestrian behavior could

also increase the risk of injury or fatality. According to a study of
5,073 pedestrians involved in traffic crashes, the following factors
11
also contributed to pedestrian-vehicle crashes:
• failing to yield (both drivers and pedestrians)

• jogging/walking in the wrong direction
• working on a parked car
• leaning on a parked car
• pushing a disabled car
• standing between parked cars
• standing in a road.
Jaywalking is often considered to be an urban problem. In

one study, the frequency of jaywalking was found to be a
function of city size where jaywalking incidents increase
as city population increases.12 In addition, the same study
noted that 71 percent of all fatal pedestrian-vehicle crashes
in the United States in 2000 occurred in urban areas. The
problem of jaywalking, however, is not limited to urban areas.
Although researchers found urban areas to have three times
more jaywalkers, suburban jaywalking can be a problem due to
a lack of sidewalks that separate pedestrians and vehicles.13
John Eck
Pedestrians, vehicles, and the physical environment. The interactions

of these three elements control the risk of pedestrian-vehicle crashes.
Here, many pedestrians walking among moving vehicles in a low light
wet environment suggest a hazardous situation.
Despite the link between jaywalking and pedestrian injuries

and fatalities, jaywalking remains a low-priority police concern.
One reason could be that police tend to lump pedestrian
violations into general traffic violations which they often
consider minor folk crimes.14 Consequently, police might not
enforce jaywalking violations as actively as other more serious
crimes. For instance, the widely touted jaywalking crackdown
in New York City actually resulted in only 99 jaywalking
tickets being issued for an entire year during the crackdown.
This level of enforcement is miniscule considering the size of
New York’s pedestrian population.15
One reason why police might be reluctant to enforce

jaywalking violations is because it potentially exposes them
to allegations of racial profiling. For instance, the city of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin has established a “zero-tolerance”
program that aims to reduce quality-of-life violations such as
speeding, excessive noise, and jaywalking. A one-year analysis
of the program, however, showed that it appeared to have
a disparate impact on Milwaukee’s minority population. For
instance, the police gave the majority of citations for quality-
of-life violations, including jaywalking, to ethnic minorities in
low-income, high-crime areas.16 In fact, blacks, Hispanics, and
other minorities received three out of every four municipal
tickets during a one-year span in Milwaukee.17 The potential
problem is that while blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities
received roughly 75 percent of quality-of-life citations, these
groups account for approximately 55 percent of Milwaukee’s
population.18
In addition to jaywalking’s being a low-priority police

concern, it appears that law makers also view jaywalking as a
low-priority problem. The current penalties associated with
jaywalking reflect this low priority in some cities. For instance,
in the District of Columbia, pedestrians face a mere $5 fine
for jaywalking.19
Although jaywalking contributes to many pedestrian injuries

and fatalities, it does not necessarily follow that jaywalking is
inherently risky behavior. If many pedestrians jaywalk without
getting injured, the number of pedestrian-vehicle crashes
might be high, but the risk of a crash for each jaywalking
incident might be quite low. There is little available research
on jaywalking’s risk rate. To calculate such risk, we would need
to know the jaywalking crash rate and jaywalking frequency.
With that said, the following sections describe several factors

that, when identified, should help your agency move beyond
solely enforcing jaywalking to reducing actual pedestrian-
vehicle crashes that result in injuries and fatalities.
Pedestrian perceptions of risk. Some pedestrians might

be injured or killed because they are unaware of their own
risk of being involved in a pedestrian-vehicle crash. Often,
pedestrians have perceptions of low risk when they frequently
travel familiar routes. In fact, pedestrians who regularly use
certain paths or crosswalks are likely to reduce the time they
wait at pedestrian crossings.20 Conversely, pedestrians who
have been involved in or who have witnessed a pedestrian-
vehicle crash are willing to wait longer at crosswalks.
Distracted pedestrians are also at higher risk. For instance,

pedestrians using a cell phone are less likely to look at traffic
before crossing, to wait for traffic to stop, to look at traffic
while crossing, or to walk briskly.21
Pedestrian consumption of alcohol. Drunken driving

is the cause of many traffic crashes throughout the world.
Similarly, drinking contributes to unsafe pedestrian behavior
that results in crashes with vehicles. Pedestrians who have
been drinking run an even higher risk of getting killed in
traffic, constituting between 39 percent and 60 percent of all
pedestrian fatalities.22 Of pedestrian fatalities resulting from
traffic crashes, between 42 percent and 61 percent of fatally
injured pedestrians had blood-alcohol content levels (BAC)
of 0.10 percent or more.23 Drivers with this BAC level are
considered “impaired” under statutory definition and cannot
legally drive.24Although also “impaired” under this statutory
definition, it is not illegal for pedestrians to walk with a BAC
level of 0.10 percent. Nonetheless, “impaired” pedestrians can
contribute to pedestrian-vehicle crashes because they likely
have slower reaction time, have poor judgment, and are not
likely assessing the safeness of walking conditions.
For instance, while pedestrians who have not drunk alcohol are
more aware of increased walking risks, drunken pedestrians tend
to be more oblivious to traffic conditions, poor lighting, and
poor weather.25 Consequently, drunken pedestrians are more
likely to be injured or killed by vehicles because of their inability
to recognize dangerous walking and traffic conditions.
Finally, the more one drinks, the higher the risk of being
involved in a pedestrian-vehicle crash resulting in a fatality. One
study found that out of 176 pedestrian fatalities, 86 of those
involved pedestrians who had been drinking, nearly all of whom
had BACs of 0.10 percent or more.26
Pedestrian perceptions of crossing devices. Some

pedestrians might not understand or be aware of signs that
convey safe walking procedures.27 Therefore, some pedestrians
might inadvertently enter roads and be struck by oncoming
traffic because they are confused. For instance, some pedestrians
may jaywalk simply because they do not know where and when
they have the right-of-way.
Pedestrian speed and pace of life. Pedestrian non-compliance

with signs and signals is a significant factor in pedestrian-vehicle
crashes nationwide.28 Some researchers have suggested that
pedestrian non-compliance could be due to the pace of life that
is often associated with larger cities. For instance, pedestrians
move more quickly in big cities when compared with small
towns.29 One researcher also discovered that whether male
pedestrians were in a hurry or not influenced their decision to
cross the street while the light was red.30
Pedestrian speed versus crossing-device speed. Crossing

devices that do not accommodate the rate at which urban
pedestrians would like to travel may also encourage poor
pedestrian behavior. For instance, if pedestrians have to wait
a relatively long time for a walk signal, they are more likely to
cross midblock to avoid delays.31
10 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities
In addition, if a pedestrian is trying to go to the opposite side

of an intersection after crossing one street, the pedestrian
will need to cross the adjacent street. However, the timing
of crossing devices may not correspond to the walker’s
directional path (see Figure 2). Therefore, after crossing one
street, a rushed pedestrian may be less inclined to wait for a
walk signal to cross the next street. Some researchers have
found that significantly fewer pedestrians jaywalked when
there were short wait times to cross the second street.32
1. The signal tells

vehicle to stop and
the pedestrian to go.
Walk
Don't walk
3. The pedestrian 2. The pedestrian has

crosses against signal, safely crossed, but the
into moving traffic, next signal tells the
thus creating a risk of pedestrian to stop and
a crash. vehicles to go.
Figure 2: Signal timing at crosswalks
Pedestrian perceptions of enforcement risk. Some

pedestrians may conform to walking regulations because of
personal preference or habit, while other pedestrians calculate
the risk of getting caught by police against the benefits of
jaywalking.33 Because many cities and police departments
do not give high priority to jaywalking enforcement, the risk
of getting caught and cited is quite low. Enforcing traffic
laws is unpopular with officers because it is perceived as
trivial and can lead to friction between citizens and police.34
Consequently, the lack of enforcement or penalties could
result in a larger disregard for pedestrian safety rules, resulting
in higher crash rates.35
The Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 11
Pedestrian unawareness of pedestrian laws and safety.

Another problem related to pedestrian laws is the possibility
that pedestrians might be unaware of or misunderstand
§ This point was substantiated by an
pedestrian laws that designate where and when they have
anonymous police officer reviewer
the right of way. It is also possible that some drivers are of this guide whose agency reached
unaware of their rights and duties or pedestrians’ rights and this conclusion on the basis of an
internal officer survey.
duties. Furthermore, a test on pedestrian safety in one police
department revealed that a large majority of officers had a
difficult time identifying pedestrian safety laws and the rights
§
and duties of both drivers and pedestrians. Given that some
police officers have trouble identifying driver and pedestrian
laws and rights, it is possible that many people in the general
population are unaware of pedestrian laws and safe behavior.
This, too, may contribute to pedestrian-vehicle crashes.
Pedestrians’ following the leader. Cues from other

pedestrians affect the cautiousness and walking behavior
of pedestrians sharing the same intersection or route.
For instance, some pedestrians act as “frontliners” (those
pedestrians nearest to the street at an intersection) while
others act as “backfielders” (those pedestrians behind other
pedestrians at an intersection). One study found that when
“frontliners” crossed, “backfielders” followed without
examining walking conditions.36 Therefore, if “frontliners”
cross illegally, other walkers may enter a road without
adequately assessing their own individual risk. Essentially, this
situation can be described as a “herd mentality” where each
member feels an exaggerated sense of protection from being
part of a group.
Similarly, obedient pedestrians (those who do not jaywalk)

and disobedient pedestrians (those who do) influence one
another’s behavior: the disobedient encourage jaywalking
among the normally obedient, but the obedient can reduce
jaywalking among the normally disobedient.37 In addition,
disobedient walkers can diminish pedestrian penalties’

deterrent effects. For example, disobedient walkers might
motivate other pedestrians to cross illegally because their
behavior indicates that particular situations lack penalties.38
Vehicle and Driver Factors
Vehicles and their drivers’ behavior are the second major

group of factors that you should consider. In all, this guide
identifies four vehicle and driver factors that could contribute
to pedestrian-vehicle crashes that result in injuries and
fatalities. Like the pedestrian factors described above, the
importance of each factor is often unclear because of a lack
of research and probably varies from problem to problem.
Driver perceptions of risk. Similar to pedestrians, drivers

can also be unaware of their own risk of hitting a pedestrian.
Furthermore, some of the factors that affect pedestrian
perceptions of risk can also influence driver perceptions of
risk. For instance, alcohol, familiarity with travel routes, and
cell phone use might reduce a driver’s ability to recognize the
risk of hitting a pedestrian.
Speed of vehicle. Speeding is a major contributor to vehicle-

vehicle crashes. It is not surprising, then, that speeding is
also an important consideration when examining pedestrian-
vehicle crashes. Speed influences these crashes in two distinct
ways. First, speed increases the chances of a collision. Simply,
faster vehicle speeds make it more difficult for drivers to see
pedestrians, and at the same time, high speeds reduce the
amount of time the driver and pedestrian have to avoid a
crash.39 Second, given a crash, the faster the vehicle the more
severe the injury to the pedestrian. For example, a pedestrian
hit at 40 miles per hour has an 85 percent chance of getting
killed, whereas the likelihood goes down to 45 percent at 30
miles per hour and 5 percent at 20 miles per hour.40
Volume of traffic. The greater the pedestrian and vehicle

traffic, the greater the chances that pedestrians and vehicles
will encounter each other on the street. As mentioned above,
most pedestrian injuries and fatalities occur in urban areas,
undoubtedly in part because cities have both more vehicles
and more pedestrians when compared with non-urban areas.41
Type of vehicle. The type of vehicle involved in a collision

influences the severity of injury and the chance of death for a
pedestrian involved in the collision. For instance, an increase
in the number of light truck vehicles (LTVs) has changed the
pedestrian injury profile due to their raised bumper height.42
Unlike LTVs, vehicles with lower bumper heights strike the
lower part of pedestrians, causing them to hit the car’s hood
or windshield. Conversely, LTVs strike pedestrians above their
center of gravity causing them to project forward, increasing
the probability that the same vehicle will subsequently run
over them. Consequently, the risk of death in an LTV-
pedestrian crash is 3.4 times higher than that of crashes
involving pedestrians and standard passenger vehicles.
Physical Environment
The physical layout of a city and its pedestrian transportation

routes and crossing devices might encourage some pedestrians
to cross or enter roads in unsafe situations. The following
environmental features could encourage risky pedestrian
behavior.
Lack of pedestrian crossing devices. Pedestrian crossing

devices serve two purposes. First, they regulate behavior by
indicating what is right and wrong. For instance, the “Don’t
Walk” signal indicates that it is wrong to cross at that time.
Second, crossing devices help people judge safety. The same
“Don’t Walk” signal also indicates that it is possibly dangerous
to cross at that time. However, when intersections lack

walking signs, crossing devices, or crosswalks, it is difficult for
pedestrians to determine appropriate behavior or judge the
safety of a particular walking route. Consequently, the lack of
signals at intersections can contribute to pedestrian-vehicle
crashes that result in injuries and fatalities.
Absence of midblock crosswalks. As mentioned,

pedestrians might avoid inconvenient intersection crossings
because they delay the pace of travel. However, midblock
crossing is implicated in 55 percent of all fatal pedestrian-
vehicle crashes.43 If convenient midblock crosswalks were
available at popular crossing points, pedestrians could cross
these areas that would otherwise be unsafe and illegal.
Width of roads. Pedestrians are far less likely to jaywalk

when crossing distance increases.44 This finding suggests that
narrower roads could encourage unsafe pedestrian behavior.
Wider roads, however, could promote higher vehicle speeds,
resulting in a possible trade-off with regard to pedestrian
safety.
Poor timing of crossing signals. Fast crossing signals can

also create problems in some circumstances. For instance,
wide roads (or widening roads as a strategy) could have the
unintended consequence of putting specific pedestrian groups
at higher risk when signals do not allow enough time for
these groups to cross safely. When crosswalk times are set for
the average pedestrian, then slower pedestrians—the elderly,
people with movement-related limitations, parents with
children, and so forth—may not be able to completely cross
before traffic starts again. In neighborhoods where slower
pedestrians make up a significant part of the population
(e.g., around retirement homes and medical facilities), a
“crash hotspot,” or area with a high pedestrian-vehicle crash
frequency, might develop. The box below reveals an example
of this type of problem, and how the city addressed it.
Addressing an Elderly Pedestrian Crash Problem in

New York City45
Scanning: The New York City Department of Transportation’s

Safety Division identified a pedestrian-vehicle crash hotspot on
Queens Boulevard.
Analysis: Data on pedestrian-vehicle crashes resulting in fatalities

as well as an examination of the environment revealed several
factors that contributed to the problem. First, Queens Boulevard
is the widest street in New York City. Second, traffic volume is
heavy across the street’s 12 lanes. Third, elderly pedestrians were
most often involved in the collisions. In fact, crash data indicated
that all 20 pedestrians who were killed in the sample were at least
60 years old or older. Researchers discovered that stoplight signals
did not allow enough time for elderly pedestrians to cross such a
wide road.
Response: In 1985, the Safety Division implemented several

strategies to address the problem. However, the response most
pertinent to this section was the modification of stoplight signals
to increase pedestrian crossing time.
Assessment: Two years after the intervention, researchers determined

that traffic volume had actually increased by 19 percent on Queens
Boulevard. Nevertheless, the number of both fatal and likely fatal
pedestrian injuries decreased after the intervention by 43 percent
and 86 percent, respectively. During the same time frame, however,
fatal pedestrian injuries occurring citywide decreased by only 4
percent.
Despite the strategy’s initial effectiveness, the city has established new
efforts to reduce pedestrian-vehicle crashes on Queens Boulevard
as recently as 2003.46 The lesson is that solutions are not permanent
and need to be revisited as traffic and other conditions change.
Poor conditions of sidewalks. Poor sidewalk conditions

might influence pedestrians to overlook safety and seek
better walking conditions along the street. In addition, poor
sidewalks may be a particular problem for runners or other
similar groups who prefer smooth surfaces for their activities
(for example, speed walkers and cyclists). Poor sidewalk
conditions, including the absence of curb cuts, also places
people with movement-related limitations in a dilemma; the
street is risky, but the sidewalk is impassible.
In addition to the conditions of sidewalks themselves,

obstructions around sidewalks could also be problematic. For
instance, in residential areas, bushes and trees can overhang
sidewalks making passage difficult. Leaf and other plant litter,
or snow and ice, can also cause obstructions when not quickly
removed. In addition, cars in many urban and congested
suburban areas often park across the sidewalk while parked
in their own driveway. This situation could also result in
pedestrians’ having to leave the sidewalk to walk around the
cars.
Absence of sidewalks in certain areas. Some travel paths

do not have sidewalks at all. The absence of sidewalks could
encourage or even force some pedestrians to walk along
dangerous roads. Again, people with limited mobility might
choose the street over walking on grass, dirt, or uneven
terrain.
Capacity of sidewalks. Pedestrians prefer to walk on wide

sidewalks.47 However, pedestrians and vehicles compete with
each other for how transportation space will be allocated in
larger cities. In response to greater vehicle traffic volumes,
some central business districts have reduced sidewalk
width to accommodate traffic flow.48 In addition, in some
commercial districts, new sidewalk cafes reduce the available
space for walking. Consequently, pedestrians often exceed
sidewalk capacity, thus encouraging pedestrian use of streets

and making crashes more common. No studies were found
that directly discussed whether this problem creates crash
hotspots. However, given the other findings and what we
know from other problems, crash hotspots are highly likely.
Special Conditions
Special conditions are circumstances that accentuate one

or more of the factors already mentioned and concentrate
them at particular times (e.g., when there is bad weather), at
particular places (e.g., shopping centers), among particular
types of people (e.g., those with limited mobility), or some
combination of times, places, and people (e.g., construction
sites). Patterns involving these special conditions can be
difficult to detect. For example, pedestrian-vehicle crashes
involving shopping centers might be spread over several
shopping areas with no discernable hotspot on a map. Only
if you looked specifically for a pattern involving shopping
centers would you see the pattern. Similarly, people with
limited mobility may be involved in crashes at a variety of
places and only by looking for special victim characteristics
would you notice that this group is particularly vulnerable.
There are ten obvious and common special conditions
listed below, but you should consider others that might be
important in your community. Though potentially difficult to
detect, once detected it might be easier to identify effective
solutions; the circumstances may be peculiar enough to point
to a few obvious ones.
John Eck
Bad weather can increase pedestrian-vehicle crashes. A snow storm

has made sidewalks in this residential area difficult to use. It has also
reduced the driving width of the streets and made them slick.
Weather. Inclement weather can influence how pedestrians

behave and their ability to assess walking conditions. In
addition, inclement weather can also affect drivers’ ability to
avoid collisions with pedestrians. Specifically, weather could
have an effect on pedestrian injuries and fatalities in the
following ways:
• Haste and speed. Poor weather makes people uncomfortable,

so they are likely to move faster to get out of it. Their
haste may make them less attentive and more willing to
take risks.
• Altered walking conditions. Weather can also make walking
surfaces more dangerous and put pedestrians at a higher
risk of injury. For example, in the winter, slippery surfaces
can decrease pedestrians’ ability to move out of danger—
e.g., change direction quickly. In fact, evidence suggests
that, among older pedestrians, more crashes occur during
fall and winter months.49 Standing water and puddles
during other seasons could also contribute to altered
pedestrian patterns.
• Reduced visibility for pedestrians. Fog, rain, snow, and darkness

reduce visibility, and consequently, the amount of time
pedestrians have to react to vehicles. Precipitation also
reduces ambient light which makes dawn and dusk more
problematic. In addition, rain gear and cold-weather
clothing can restrict visibility. In particular, coat hoods
can restrict peripheral vision, especially the deep hoods
that have become more popular.
• Reduced visibility for drivers. Some of the same factors that
reduce pedestrians’ ability to see also affect drivers’.
Although fully functioning wipers can help with visibility,
fog, rain, and snow still restrict drivers’ ability to see,
particularly objects not directly in front of the car.
A pedestrian-vehicle crash hotspot might occur because a

location that is safe during good weather becomes high risk
in bad weather. Responses that may be effective in good
weather, might not work as well in bad weather. Creating
weather-specific responses may be difficult, but you should
consider doing so.
People with limited mobility. People who use wheelchairs

or electric scooters to aid mobility often travel on streets
instead of sidewalks. The fact that they are slower than most
cars, and often unexpected, puts them at great risk. Many
people have temporary limited mobility—parents pushing
strollers or walking with very young children, or people
carrying objects or pushing a shopping cart, for example—
that can put them at higher risk of being hit by a vehicle.
People with occupational risks. Some occupations require

employees to do their job close to traffic. For instance,
police officers, construction workers, mail carriers, garbage
collectors, and parking officers often work near roads. Local
analysis in your community might reveal that these types of
workers are involved in pedestrian-vehicle crashes more often
than other types of pedestrians.
Children and teens. Children are potentially a high-risk

group. For instance, pedestrian injury is the third leading
cause of unintentional injury-related deaths among children
§ See Problem-Specific Guide No.
ages five to 14.50 The “dart-out” phenomenon, where
3, Speeding in Residential Areas.
children quickly enter traffic from between parked cars, is one
major factor that has contributed to 80 percent of pedestrian-
vehicle crashes involving children aged six to eight from 1983
to 1990.51 In addition to the “dart-out” phenomenon, several
other factors could put children and teens at higher risk:
• Walking is a major form of transportation for children.

• Children frequently don’t pay attention to traffic
conditions.
• Children’s height makes them difficult to see.
• Teens can be at high risk when in groups (for example,
since teens often travel in groups, they might be more
prone to “herd mentality”).
When children and teens use streets as recreation areas, this

puts them in direct conflict with vehicles. Streets through
areas with high concentrations of children and teens are
potential crash locations. It is not clear, however, that
restricting children and teens from roads is the only way to
achieve a net safety effect. For instance, the Dutch have built
mixed-use roads where streets are designed as extensions of
public space used for nondriving activities such as walking,
running, and playing rather than separate roads for vehicle
travel only.§ Some cities in the U.S. have also implemented this
traffic-calming strategy.
John Eck
Encumbered pedestrians are at risk of being involved in crashes. This

man is crossing a street pushing a shopping cart and holding a cup of
coffee. The photo was taken through the driver side window to give
the driver’s view.
Parking areas near shopping centers. Parking areas near

shopping centers could be highly problematic as there are
fewer clear pedestrian paths. Consequently, pedestrians
interact more with cars. Furthermore, pedestrians are often
encumbered with children, packages, carts, and other items.
At the same time, drivers are looking for parking spaces,
reading store signs, avoiding oncoming traffic, and having to
contend with pedestrians. Therefore, parking areas are marked
by both distracted pedestrians and drivers, thereby increasing
the chance of a crash. In fact, one study discovered that the
majority of a sample of pedestrian-vehicle crashes occurred
in a shopping business district.52 Efforts to reduce crashes in
such places likely require owner and vendor participation.
Street repair and construction sites. Construction of

sidewalks, streets, and buildings can create temporary unsafe
environments for pedestrians. Pedestrians who are asked to
make long detours around these sites may choose instead to
walk on the streets to save time or avoid the crowded detour
route. In addition, construction debris and materials can
create obstacles that force pedestrians into the street. Since
construction sites are temporary, the problems they create

may be hidden: because the crashes are spread over a large
area they may not form a spatial cluster on maps, and if there
are not good records of where and when construction sites
existed, it might be difficult to associate crashes with these
sites. Solving such problems requires coordination with the
building contractors and the local inspection and licensing
authorities.
Major highways. Largely, this guide has focused on

pedestrian-vehicle crashes that occur in residential or
urban areas. However, major highways also provide special
conditions that could contribute to pedestrian-vehicle crashes.
One problem could entail highway off-ramps. These ramps
contain rapidly exiting cars entering the traffic stream at an
angle. Therefore, drivers might not see a pedestrian in time to
avoid a collision. The same problem could occur at on-ramps
where vehicles enter the highway at an oblique angle from a
major thoroughfare.
You should also consider walking along major highways as

a special risk factor. For instance, it is possible that when a
motorist’s vehicle breaks down or runs out of gas on the
highway, the driver will likely exit his or her car to inspect the
problem or walk to the nearest gas station. In doing so, the
person exposes him- or herself to high-speed traffic, without
any form of physical separation from passing vehicles.
One-way streets. Busy one-way streets can create a special

hazard when motorists looking for vehicle traffic from only
one direction fail to notice a pedestrian crossing the road in
the opposite direction from where the motorist is looking.
Location of attractions. A popular attraction could be

located across the street from where people live. For instance,
the only nearby store or restaurant might be opposite to a
large housing complex. In some areas, however, there might

not be a convenient marked crossing for pedestrians traveling
to such locations. In this case, the solution might be to install
a crosswalk or crossing device where pedestrians often cross
the street to reach a popular attraction. In other cases, the
solution might be to relocate needed services on the side of
the road where the majority of residents live, so they do not
need to constantly cross the street.
Unlawful street-vending. Unlicensed vendors who sell

various items (e.g., bottled water, newspapers, window-
washing services) to motorists in streets or from medians risk
being hit by a car because they move quickly across traffic
lanes and around stopped cars. In some communities, children
are increasingly street-vending, especially during summer.
Doing so provides those who are too young to work legally
with a way to earn money for themselves and their families.53
Some police departments have begun fining street vendors,
while also encouraging young street vendors to sell their items
from sidewalks.54
Understanding Your Local Problem 25
Understanding Your Local Problem
The summary of what is known about pedestrian-vehicle

crashes and resulting injuries and fatalities provides a very
general overview. To understand your local pedestrian-vehicle
crash problem, you must combine this general knowledge
with specific facts describing your local conditions. Carefully
analyzing your local problem will help you design an effective
response strategy that fits your specific needs.
Stakeholders
In addition to criminal justice agencies, the following groups

have an interest in the pedestrian injury and fatality problem,
and you should consult them when gathering information
about the problem and responding to it:
• local government agencies (e.g., traffic engineering

departments, transportation departments, planning
departments, emergency medical services departments,
medical examiners’ and coroners’ offices, public health
departments):
o such agencies could provide data for analyzing the
problem and also help plan and implement responses
o these agencies can implement costly responses that
go beyond the scope of local neighborhood or
resident groups
o when approaching government agencies for help,
however, it might be useful to suggest building a
partnership of several organizations instead of
asking a single agency to take sole responsibility for
the problem and its solution.
• hospitals that handle crash victims:

o medical staff (i.e., doctors and nurses) often handle
the aftermath of pedestrian injuries and fatalities
making them useful advocates to implement
responses in your community
o some medical staff are injury experts and do
much in the area of prevention, in addition to the
aftermath
o since medical staff are usually occupied with patients,
it might be useful to contact hospital administrators
for aid.
• neighborhood safety groups:

o these groups can use their local knowledge to
identify the problem and potential contributing
factors
o their knowledge could be especially useful to identify
problems involving special factors that can be
difficult to detect
o government and other agencies might also be more
inclined to help plan and implement responses
if approached by organized neighborhood safety
groups.
• neighborhood resident and business associations:

o these groups can help guard against negative public
reactions to responses that impose a cost on either
pedestrians or drivers.
• local schools:
o schools are critical to developing and distributing
pedestrian-safety education/awareness campaigns
and information when children and teens are a high-
risk group in your community.
• organizations representing high-frequency walkers (e.g.,

joggers, speed walkers, dog walkers):
o these organizations could provide input from several
high-risk groups that help to develop responses.
• high-frequency drivers (e.g., commuters, taxi drivers):

o such drivers are likely familiar with travel routes
and could help to identify problem locations and
contributing factors.
• public transportation authorities that run bus routes:

o like high-frequency drivers, these authorities are also
familiar with travel routes and could help to identify
problem locations and contributing factors.
• insurance companies:
o since insurance companies have a financial stake
in pedestrian-vehicle crashes, they might be apt to
help develop and fund responses that prevent such
crashes.
Asking the Right Questions
Ask the following questions to gain a better understanding of

your community’s pedestrian injury and fatality problem. The
answers to these questions will help you develop an effective
response that reduces the frequency of pedestrian injuries
and fatalities.
Incidents
• How many pedestrian injuries and fatalities occur in your

jurisdiction, community, or area of interest?
• What percentage of pedestrian injuries and fatalities is
the fault of pedestrians? Local data could show which
factors listed earlier have been contributory causes.
• What are the general circumstances surrounding

pedestrian injuries and fatalities (e.g., were pedestrians/
drivers intoxicated)? Again, local data could shed light on
these circumstances.
• How concerned is the community with the problem of
pedestrian injuries and fatalities? This information could
be useful for planning responses that involve community
participation.
• Does the problem cause traffic congestion or any other
potentially harmful problems (e.g., traffic slowing at
crash sites)?
• How long has your community had problems with
pedestrian injuries and fatalities?
• Do vehicle-vehicle crashes occur in areas of heavy
foot traffic because drivers are trying to avoid hitting
pedestrians?
Locations/Times
• Where do pedestrian injuries and fatalities frequently

occur in your community? Which particular blocks,
intersections, or other areas?
• In what types of areas do pedestrian injuries
and fatalities frequently occur in (e.g., residential,
commercial)?
• Is there a certain community location where pedestrian
injuries and fatalities repeatedly occur? For instance,
perhaps your community has a popular business that is
located midblock but its parking is across a large street.
• When do pedestrian injuries and fatalities frequently
occur (morning, midday, or evening; day of week; certain
seasons)?
Victims
• Who are the pedestrian victims? Are there noticeable

demographic patterns among them (e.g., sex, occupation,
age, or limited mobility)?
• What are pedestrians doing before crashes occur (e.g.,
shopping, running, drinking)?
• Are pedestrian victims mostly community residents or
visitors from out of town?
• Typically, how serious are the pedestrians’ injuries? For
example, do injuries often require emergency medical
care? Or are injuries often minor, requiring no medical
care?
• What pedestrian characteristics could have caused them
to illegally enter or cross a road? For instance, were the
victims drinking before entering the road?
Physical Characteristics
• Do common physical conditions exist around crash sites?

For instance, are there certain types of traffic signals or
crosswalk designs associated with high-frequency crash
sites?
• Are your pedestrian crosswalks clearly identifiable to
passing motorists as well as to pedestrians? If not, why?
• Do signs or signals (or their absence) appear to contribute
to the crashes? For instance, is a crossing signal’s timing
interval problematic for some pedestrians, is the crossing
device broken, or is there no crossing device at the
intersection?
• Are sidewalks crowded near problem locations? For
instance, is there a popular attraction nearby, or are
sidewalks too narrow?
• Are certain sidewalks damaged or difficult to use near

problem locations?
• Does weather make walking difficult in your
community? What season or type of weather is often
associated with pedestrian-vehicle crashes?
Current and Previous Responses
• Does your community currently have enforceable

jaywalking laws?
• If so, do police officers commonly enforce jaywalking
laws? Also, how do officers handle jaywalking incidents
(e.g., give verbal warnings, issue citations, or something
else)? If police do not commonly enforce jaywalking
laws, why not?
• Do police place higher priority on enforcing pedestrian
laws and safety after injuries and fatalities occur?
• What is the typical investigation process for a
pedestrian-vehicle crash? Do police typically involve
other agencies in these investigations?
• Does your agency have a special unit designed to
handle pedestrian traffic enforcement?
• Are local citizens educated on the harms related
to unsafe pedestrian behavior? If so, how is that
education conveyed?
• Has your community redesigned or installed improved
crossing devices?
• How has your community dealt with pedestrian-vehicle
crashes in the past? Which agencies were involved?
What did these agencies do? How successful at
preventing crashes were they?
• Is pedestrian safety routinely considered when planning
city streets and sidewalks?
Measuring Your Effectiveness 31
Measuring Your Effectiveness
Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your

efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify
your responses if they are not producing the intended
results. You should take measures of your problem before you
implement responses, to determine how serious the problem
is, and after you implement them, to determine whether they
have been effective. You should take all measures in both
the target area and the surrounding area. For more detailed
guidance on measuring effectiveness, see the Problem-Solving
Tools guide, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory
Guide for Police Problem-Solvers.
The following are potentially useful measures of the

effectiveness of responses to pedestrian injuries and fatalities.
These measures are divided into two groups: those that
measure the impact on the problem (so-called outcome
measures), and those that measure how well your agency the
responses (so-called process measures).
Impact on the Problem
• Reduced number of pedestrian injuries and fatalities in

your community
• reduced number of pedestrian injuries and fatalities at
hotspots
• reduced calls for police service for pedestrian injuries and
fatalities
• reduced seriousness of injuries (e.g., fewer deaths per
crash, shorter hospital stays)
• reduced number of secondary crashes (e.g., vehicle-
vehicle crashes caused by drivers avoiding pedestrians)
associated with the problem.
Impact on Pedestrian and Driver Behavior
• Increased pedestrian perception of risk

• increased pedestrian perception of crossing devices
• increased driver awareness of pedestrian right-of-way
laws
• improved sidewalk access and mobility
• compliance with pedestrian laws after any temporary
responses (e.g., increased enforcement is removed).
Data, Information, and Analysis
Initially, your agency’s ability to reduce incidents of

pedestrian injuries and fatalities depends on the data available
for analysis. For instance, data are necessary to identify
high-frequency pedestrian-vehicle crash locations where
you should implement responses or to show if alcohol was
involved.
In addition, your agency must also determine which type

of pedestrian behavior is problematic and which factors
contribute to pedestrian injuries and fatalities. Several
methods of data collection could help your agency analyze
these variables.
First, your agency could systematically observe pedestrian

walking behavior at identified problem areas. You could
identify problem areas through pedestrian injury and fatality
statistics. Systematic observation allows you to analyze
variables such as street/sidewalk design, pedestrian signs/
crossing devices, pedestrian paths, etc. To best understand
the problem, the observers should not be uniformed police
officers, or if they are, they should be hidden from the
view of the people being watched. Otherwise, pedestrians
might change their behavior and you will not know how
Measuring Your Effectiveness 33
they behave when the police are not present. You can use
videotapes of these observations for detailed analysis and
group discussion later. You can also use videotapes to help
illustrate the problem to other stakeholders, educate the
public, and potentially evaluate the response (by comparing
before-and-after response video imagery of the same
location at the same times).
Second, your agency should consider conducting surveys

of pedestrians in the problem areas. You should design
surveys to reveal why pedestrians choose certain behaviors
at particular locations rather than other behaviors. You can
also use them to learn about pedestrian perceptions of signs,
signals, and other physical conditions. For an example of
a police-pedestrian survey from the Madison (Wisconsin)
Police Department, see www.ci.madison.wi.us/police/
pedestrian.html.
Third, your agency could interview drivers and pedestrians

involved in crashes. These data could provide detailed
accounts of the situation leading up to the crash. In
addition, police investigative reports can provide important
information. Data from other first responders (i.e., fire and
EMS) might also be useful, as well as information from
emergency room physicians. Because of medical privacy
legislation, medical staff cannot share much of this data.
However, discussions with medical professionals can identify
ways to ensure patient privacy and legal compliance, and still
yield valuable information.
Fourth, your agency should compare streets with high rates

of pedestrian injuries and fatalities to similar streets (in terms
of traffic volume, pedestrian volume, location types, etc.)
without many pedestrian injuries and fatalities. This will help
reveal factors that are major contributors to the problem
(factors found at problem locations but not at similar
nonproblem locations).
Responses to the Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 35
Responses to the Problem of Pedestrian

Injuries and Fatalities
Once you have analyzed your local problem and established

a baseline for measuring effectiveness, you should consider
possible responses to address the problem. The following
responses provide a foundation of ideas for addressing
your particular pedestrian-vehicle crash problem. Several
of these responses may be applicable to your community’s
problem. It is critical that you tailor responses to local
circumstances, and that you can justify each response based
on reliable analysis of your local conditions. In most cases,
an effective strategy will involve implementing several
different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are
seldom effective in reducing or solving such a problem.
Do not limit yourself to considering what police can do:
carefully consider whether others in your community share
responsibility for the problem and can help police better
respond to it. In some cases, you may need to be shift the
responsibility to those who can implement more-effective
responses. For example, it might be that redesigning an
intersection may be the most effective response. In such
a circumstance nonpolice public agencies and private
organizations will have to do most of the work in carrying
out the response. (For more detailed information on
shifting and sharing responsibility, see Response Guide No.
3, Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems.)
General Considerations for an Effective Response

Strategy
The following are some general considerations that may

help you develop and implement an effective response
strategy.
1. Designating a special pedestrian-safety taskforce

within your agency. If pedestrian safety problems are
common and serious, then it may be worth considering
creating a special group to address these problems.
Because the pedestrian behaviors that lead to crashes are
often minor, police officers sometimes ignore them. A
special group can give them the priority they deserve and
can have the flexibility to devise creative responses, based
on analysis, that have an impact on the problems.
The taskforce might be temporary, with a limited mandate

to address specific problems, after which it will disband.
Or it might be a permanent special unit, with long-term
responsibility. In either case, this response works best if
the group has the goal of reducing crashes, injuries and
deaths, and that hard data measure the achievement of
this goal. Under no circumstances should you measure the
group’s success by their activities—citations issued, arrests
made, meetings attended, fliers passed out, etc. In short,
if the taskforce is not reducing crashes, injuries, or deaths,
then it is not working.
2. Training city planners to consider pedestrian

safety. City planners are typically involved in road
construction, sidewalk repair, sidewalk extensions, etc.
Therefore, these personnel should be trained to consider
pedestrian safety when modifying the city environment.
In doing so, city planners could proactively “design out”
the possibility of pedestrian injuries and fatalities before
they become a community problem. Some of the websites

listed in Appendix B provide information you could use to
train city planners on improving pedestrian safety through
environmental design.
3. Creating ordinances to reduce pedestrian-vehicle

crashes. Pedestrian ordinances could target certain factors
that cause pedestrian-vehicle crashes. For instance, some
communities have ordinances that require drivers to park
their vehicles a certain distance from marked crosswalks
to help drivers and pedestrians see each other. 55 It is
likely that many cities have parking enforcement agencies,
recognizing that enforcement will not be a high police
priority. To be most effective, ordinances should target
high-risk locations.
4. Guarding against negative public reactions.

Responses that impose a cost on either pedestrians or
drivers can cause them to change behaviors. That is the
point. But some possible changes could displace the
problem. If drivers shift from major streets to residential
side streets to avoid traffic calming, for example, they may
put pedestrians on the side streets at risk. If midblock
crossing is encouraged, but nothing is done to warn
drivers, then making it easier to cross midblock will
increase pedestrian-vehicle crashes.
There is considerable controversy over perceived police

differential enforcement against minorities, particularly
young minority males. Young male pedestrians are at
higher risk of being involved in crashes than older males
and women, so enforcement will likely impact them the
most. If the problem area is in a minority neighborhood,
perceptions of racial profiling might increase, unless
police discuss the problem and possible responses with
the community in advance.
Even when race is not a factor, those subject to

enforcement are likely to perceive it as unfair, unless
the police have already sensitized the community to
the problem and the need for pedestrians to follow
crossing rules. In addition, local merchants, who may
rely on pedestrians or drivers, may feel that anything that
inconveniences their customers imperils their livelihoods.
Working with them early in the problem-solving process
can allay some of these fears and help craft solutions that
benefit everyone. Finally, gaining community members’
and leaders’ support might guard against negative public
reactions. For example, upset residents might be more
tolerant of enforcement if their neighbor or a prominent
community leader is standing alongside the police
department, explaining the necessity of the enforcement.
One way to gain community support could be to create

community-pedestrian safety teams or groups. These
collaborative groups could include representatives from
law enforcement, city/county traffic engineering, and
community and business groups. Such groups could help
get feedback from the community about the problem
of pedestrian injuries and fatalities, as well as aid in the
understanding of the problem and the possible solutions.
All the while, including community participants could help
create “buy-in” to whatever resulting changes safety teams
propose.
Using a Process Model to Develop Specific

Responses
This guide has focused on two actors involved in the

process of a pedestrian-vehicle crash: the pedestrian and
the driver. It has also focused on the physical environment
immediately around these two actors’ interaction. We can
usefully expand the ideas the pedestrian-vehicle crash
triangle summarizes by considering the process by which
these crashes take place. Figure 3 depicts this process.
Before pedestrians and drivers are in the same

environment, either or both have acted early to either help
prevent a crash or make it more likely. Examples of this
include drinking, talking on a cell phone, or speeding. As
the two actors converge, their earlier decisions influence
what they can do just before a potential crash. We call
these the immediate actions. Some immediate actions help
prevent the crash (e.g., looking both ways before crossing,
crossing at the light, slowing down when pedestrians
appear to be trying to cross the road, etc) while others
make the crash more likely (e.g., darting off the curb).
The physical environment plays a large role here. A

barricade, for example, can prevent a drunken pedestrian
from crossing a car’s path. The physical environment
includes all the proximate physical circumstances that can
facilitate or prevent a crash (e.g., signs, signals, barriers,
curbs, cars parked at curbs, ice, lighting conditions). The
agents’ interaction in this environment determines if a
crash will occur.
Finally, as the actors separate, there is the aftermath

to consider. If the crash was avoided, the aftermath
might simply be some jangled nerves. If there is a crash,
the aftermath includes the injuries sustained, vehicle
damage, traffic congestion, etc. As this guide focuses on
prevention, we have not addressed the aftermath here.
Nevertheless, a problem-solver might want to consider
whether changing how the aftermath is handled—by
drivers, pedestrians, police, emergency medical services,
emergency room staff, and others—could reduce the harm
from crashes that do occur. For example, if a substantial
number of drivers leave the scene of crashes without
reporting to police (hit-and-run), this problem might
require separate examination.
The process model is useful for three reasons. First, the

model can help you consider the major factors involved
in a particular pedestrian-vehicle crash problem. Second,
it can help you organize a list of important questions
regarding each component of the crash process. Third, the
model can help your agency better formulate responses
by considering all areas where they could address the
problem (e.g., drivers’ early decisions, pedestrians’
immediate decisions). (See Appendix C, “Developing a
Comprehensive Response to Pedestrian-Vehicle Crashes.”)
The responses this guide next discusses target several
components of the process model.
The process model suggests five separate intervention

points for a comprehensive response to a pedestrian-
vehicle crash: two each for the two actors—to influence
early and immediate actions—and one for the physical
environment. The responses that follow influence one
or more of these five points (we have labeled pedestrian
and driver interventions as “early” and “immediate” to

show how they fit into this process). Though you should
not neglect the aftermath, it is important to remember
that preventing the crash in the first place should be the
primary goal.
Pedestrians Drivers & Vehicles
Early Actions Physical Environment Early Actions

Immediate Immediate
Actions Actions
Crash/
No Crash
Aftermath Aftermath
Figure 3: The process of pedestrian-vehicle crashes
Some evaluation research studies directly examine the problem

of pedestrian injuries and fatalities. Many of these analyses,
however, report mixed results regarding the effectiveness
of certain responses. And researchers have not evaluated
some responses. For these reasons, many of the following
responses are suggested because of their potential effectiveness
for particular circumstances, rather than for widespread
applicability. It is important that you continually evaluate your
response to assess its impact in your particular community.
Specific Responses to Pedestrian Injuries and

Fatalities
Pedestrian Behavior
This set of responses addresses both early and immediate

actions.
5. Establishing hotspot-specific crackdowns on

jaywalking (immediate). As mentioned, pedestrians might
jaywalk if they do not perceive any consequences for their
actions. Therefore, your agency could consider increasing the
priority of jaywalking enforcement. This approach works best
under five conditions:
• First, the enforcement focuses on a known crash hotspot.

Evidence of crackdown effectiveness against other
offenses suggests that crackdowns are effective when
concentrated in small hotspots, but their effects wear off
(see Response Guide No. 1, The Benefits and Consequences of
Police Crackdowns).
• Second, the enforcement concentrates on known times of
crashes in these hotspots.
• Third, the police clearly articulate the reasons for
enforcement to the local community, so it is seen as
necessary and not arbitrary.
• Fourth, officers actually act on the increased priority.
• Fifth, the penalties are sufficiently strong to induce
pedestrians to avoid jaywalking but not so onerous that
citizen complaints force the police to reduce enforcement
prematurely.
It is also important to note that enforcement crackdowns

are seldom sustainable for long periods, so you should best
consider crackdowns as a short-term response and not a long-
term solution. Consider them to be a short-term supplement

to other longer-term responses.
There is some evidence, however, that jaywalking enforcement

programs may not achieve much deterrence. As mentioned
above, one report described the “crackdown” that New York
City waged on jaywalking during the late-1990s. Nonetheless,
this effort to step up jaywalking enforcement seemed to go
unnoticed by both police authorities and citizens. In fact, the
same article noted that the president of the police officers’
union claimed he had forgotten about the crackdown, while
at the same time, dozens of jaywalking New Yorkers said they
had seen no change in jaywalking enforcement.
Finally, although jaywalking and other types of pedestrian

behavior have been emphasized as major factors in pedestrian
injuries and fatalities, it is important not to confuse the ends
and means of the problem. In other words, your agency’s
goal should be to reduce pedestrian encounters with moving
vehicles, not necessarily to reduce jaywalking. Therefore, be
mindful that you should frame responses aimed at pedestrian
behavior in the context of reducing actual pedestrian injuries
and fatalities, rather than part of a more general crime control
strategy.
6. Launching location-specific pedestrian-safety

education/awareness campaigns (early). Some pedestrians
might not accurately perceive the risk of injury or fatality
from a collision with a vehicle. Consequently, they engage
in risky behavior. Pedestrian-safety education/awareness
campaigns are a way to alert the public to the dangers of
such behavior.56 Some campaigns appear to be effective. For
instance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
developed an educational video (“Willie Whistle”) intended to
teach kindergarteners to third-graders safe crossing practices.
An evaluation of the campaign revealed that “dart-and-dash”

collisions involving four- to six-year-olds were reduced by 30
§ See Response Guide No. 5, Crime
percent in test cities.57 In addition, you could target safety
Prevention Publicity Campaigns.
campaigns toward unsafe driver behavior. Materials that could
help in designing such campaigns are currently available. For a
start, see the web resources for improving pedestrian safety in
Appendix B.
In some cities, citizen groups have also created awareness

campaigns against jaywalking. For example, volunteers
in Shanghai, China have monitored some of the city’s
crosswalks.58 These citizens believe that figurative “whistle-
blowing” can improve public awareness of the problem of
jaywalking.
Education/awareness campaigns are more successful when

they target people who are directly at risk of the problem.§
For instance, if the problem involves a particular high school
where students jaywalk at the school’s opening and closing
times, then the campaign should focus on those students and
not on students in other, low-risk schools. In addition, you
should isolate the awareness campaign’s geographic coverage
to problem areas. Using the same example, the message will
be more effective if delivered at or near the intersections
where the problem occurs, rather than only in school
assemblies, for instance. General public-safety campaigns
targeting the larger community are largely ineffective, as most
people are unaffected by the problem, and the few that are
affected forget about the message before they need to apply
it.
7. Coordinating crossing devices to facilitate

uninterrupted walking paths (immediate). Some urban
pedestrians disobey crossing devices because of their pace of
life. These “rushed” pedestrians may have less need to cross
against a “Don’t Walk” signal when crossing systems allow
for an uninterrupted walking sequence. This response could
be inexpensive, as it only involves manipulating crossing-
device timing. However, one possible drawback of this
response could be increased traffic congestion. Furthermore,
coordinating crossing devices at certain locations could
be difficult if there is a mix of both pedestrians with and
without limited mobility. In other words, the timing of a
particular crossing sequence might not accommodate all types
of pedestrians.
8. Installing pedestrian countdown-timer signals at

problem intersections (immediate). Some pedestrians
might avoid waiting at crossing lights because of the
uncertainty of how the long the wait might be.59 Countdown-
timer signals inform pedestrians how much time they
have until a “Walk” signal flashes, thereby removing the
uncertainty. In one community, this crossing system resulted
in a 12 percent reduction in jaywalking.60
Another type of timer signal counts the amount of time

a pedestrian has left to cross, rather than the amount of
time until a “Walk” signal flashes. Walkers view the devices
favorably because they provide additional information, and
they understand them better than conventional pedestrian
signals.61 Easily understood crossing systems could discourage
pedestrians from resorting to jaywalking. The signals are easy
to install, have a positive maintenance record, and have been
credited with a 52 percent reduction in pedestrian injury
collisions.62
9. Addressing pedestrian drinking behavior (early). If

the problem stems from pedestrians’ drinking at bars, then
focusing on that might be effective (see box).
Addressing Pedestrians’ Early Actions: Bar Management and Pedestrian

Safety in Shawnee, Kansas63
In some circumstances, bars’ serving practices combine with street crossing configurations
and traffic flow to create dangerous situations. In this example, a police effort to reduce calls
from a problem bar seems to have had the positive side effect of reducing pedestrian-vehicle
crashes. The Shawnee Police Department’s crime analyst, Susan Smith, had identified one
bar we will call “Ferro’s” as the source of a very high number of calls, particularly involving
assaults.
Ferro’s was located on a major thoroughfare. The bar attracted

Pedestrian-Vehicle Crashes a very large crowd, but patrons had to park on the far side
Before and After Changing of the thoroughfare. Large numbers of patrons, therefore,
Bar Management Practices crossed the road sober and returned to their cars drunk.
Year Accidents
2001 4 To reduce the violence calls, police put pressure on the owners
2002 6 to improve their bar management practices. Among the many
2003 8 changes the owners introduced was a reduction in the number
2004 7 of patrons, which lessened the crowding and accompanying
2005 2 provocations leading to fights. Though the police looked into
2006 1 ways to move the parking area to the same side of the street
as Ferro’s, they were unsuccessful.
Nevertheless, the bar management improvements may have reduced pedestrian-vehicle

crashes, as can be seen in the accompanying table. Smith’s work and police pressure to
change Ferro’s practices began in May 2004. If the figures for 2005–06 are indicative of
future crashes, then changing bar management reduced the problem from two thirds to three
quarters of the 2002–04 levels. The decline might be due to fewer patrons’ crossing the street,
or to patrons’ being less inebriated when returning to their vehicles. In either case, if a random
fluctuation did not cause the drop in crashes, it seems quite likely that the drop was due to
changes in bar practices, as there were no other changes in the immediate area that could have
caused this drop.
All of these responses address early decisions, though one also § See Problem-Specific Guide No.
influences immediate decisions. Because of drivers’ isolation 3, Speeding in Residential Areas, for
in their vehicles and the speed they are traveling, it is difficult further information on controlling
speeding.
to craft immediate responses directed drivers. The physical
environment responses, shown later, have immediate effects on
drivers and/or pedestrians.
10. Enforcing speeding violations and other unsafe driver

behaviors at high-risk locations (early). Since pedestrians
are more likely to be injured or killed as vehicle speeds increase,
police could establish speed zones and increase the number of
speeding citations at high-risk locations.§ One way to establish
a speed zone could be to install traffic cameras at problem
intersections. In addition, local court authorities should
aggressively enforce violations related to pedestrian safety.
Beyond speeding enforcement, police should also issue citations
for unsafe driver behavior that could put pedestrians at risk at
intersections (e.g., running red lights, turning on red without
looking, failing to yield right-of-way to pedestrians).
The more focused enforcement is at high-risk places, and
the more the community understands the reasons for the
enforcement, the less likely it is to create pressure from
the public to curtail the enforcement. As with pedestrian
enforcement, you should consider speed enforcement a
temporary strategy supporting a longer-term solution.
11. Increasing driver’s perceptions of risk regarding

pedestrian injuries and fatalities (early). An information
program’s impact is probably very low unless police highly
target the program at drivers who frequent high-risk locations,
and it occurs at those locations. Highly visible warning signs
and other devices near crash hotspots may be more effective
than general campaigns. During traffic stops at high-risk
locations, police officers could distribute information regarding
pedestrian and vehicle safety. Another way to make drivers

aware of the risk of pedestrian injuries and fatalities is
§ See the POP guide titled Drunk
through community-based safety campaigns. For instance,
Driving for further information on
community residents could post lawn signs notifying drivers
controlling drunken drivers. to slow down because children are at play. In addition, similar
to the anti-speeding strategy the Madison Police Department
used, community volunteers could join police officers on
traffic stops to help explain to speeding drivers the dangers
of pedestrian-vehicle crashes. Though it is often difficult to
convey information to drivers in moving vehicles, in highly
specific circumstances, there may be opportunities to make
some of these approaches very useful.
12. Diverting or calming traffic near pedestrian-vehicle

crash hotspots (early and immediate). Police could use
barricades or other rerouting devices to direct vehicle traffic
away from high-risk locations. In addition, installing speed
bumps or speed humps is another option. Speed bumps or
humps calm traffic without directly causing drivers to divert
from their typical travel routes. In both cases, vehicle traffic
could increase in other nearby areas as drivers try to avoid
traffic calming. Consequently, areas not experiencing many
pedestrian injuries and fatalities could become high-risk
locations. So traffic calming should work best when there are
few good alternative routes and maintaining rapid traffic flow
is not a high priority. In addition, it might be best to divert
traffic to nearby areas that have small pedestrian populations.
13. Addressing drunken drivers (early). This response is

likely most appropriate in “night life” areas marked by both
heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Police could establish
DUI checkpoints to deter drunken motorists from driving
in areas with heavy pedestrian traffic. They could use this
response in conjunction with monitoring drunken pedestrians,
as mentioned above. Interventions with bar owners regarding
serving policies might also be useful in some circumstances.§
Immediate Physical Environment
Because the physical environment surrounds the immediate

decisions, all of these interventions are designed to influence
pedestrian and/or driver decisions in the immediate context of
a potential crash. In addition, some of the following responses
focus on improving existing crossing systems and other safety
measures. Some crash hotspots, however, might not have any
crossing systems or safety measures to begin with. Therefore,
your agency might consider less expensive devices before
resorting to some of the more sophisticated crossing systems
and safety measures discussed below.
14. Constructing pedestrian barriers to separate foot

traffic from vehicles at pedestrian-vehicle collision
hotspots. This response is based on the idea that physical
separation keeps pedestrians from crossing streets at prohibited
sites. In two cities, significant decreases occurred in the
number of pedestrians crossing midblock before and after the
installation of pedestrian barricades.64 One drawback, however,
is that installing such barricades can be expensive.65 However,
using more-inexpensive barricades, such as shrubs and planters,
could also be an option. A variation on these barricades is to
place them down the middle of very wide streets, in a median.
Pedestrians thinking of crossing would note that they could not
cross completely so they would go to the appropriate crossing.
One drawback to this option is that the barricade can act as a
trap for pedestrians who miscalculate and try to cross the street.
John Eck
A variety of safety barriers are possible. The first photo shows a

simple barrier designed to separate children from their parents’
vehicles during drop-off and pick-up times at a private school.
The second photo shows a barrier along a busy street that was
designed to enhance the environment. The barrier consists of a
decorative chain, plantings, street furniture, and a change in the
walking surface. It leads to a designated crossing point marked by
signs and lights. The lights are pedestrian-controlled.
15. Installing curb extensions at problem locations.

At both intersections and midblock areas, the curb can be
extended into the road to narrow the distance between
crossing points and increase visibility for both drivers and
pedestrians (e.g., when looking past parked cars).66 One
problem with curb extensions is that they place pedestrians
closer to moving traffic when compared with traditional
intersections. In addition, curb extensions could affect bus
routes, require maintenance, and interfere with street drainage
patterns.67
16. Installing crossing systems that include a pedestrian

detection system. These crossing systems have low
poles with sensors on both sides of the crosswalk. When
pedestrians approach, warning lights that are raised above
the pavement send a bright beam of light toward oncoming
traffic to yield.68 The systems run on solar power, so power
loss is not a problem, at least in areas with sufficient sunlight.
These systems give pedestrians the right-of-way, which caused
a reduction in pedestrians’ crossing outside the crosswalk in
one evaluation.69 The appearance of these crossing systems,

however, could confuse both drivers and pedestrians creating
a worse hazard.
17. Installing fluorescent strong yellow-green (SYG)

pedestrian warning signs. If the visibility of pedestrian
warning signs is creating a problem, your agency could
consider using fluorescent SYG pedestrian warning signs
made from microprismatic material.70 These types of signs are
more reflective and more visible to drivers when compared
with traditional engineer-grade yellow pedestrian warning
signs.71 Overall, SYGs have produced marginal improvements
in pedestrian safety during daylight conditions.72 One problem
with SYGs is that they are not as effective (i.e., less reflective)
under low ambient-light conditions.73 Therefore, SYGs might
not be appropriate for reducing pedestrian-vehicle crashes at
hotspots where most crashes occur at dusk, at dawn, or in the
evening.
18. Designing wider roads and increasing existing

roads’ width to deter jaywalking. We could not locate
an evaluation of this response’s effectiveness. Two obvious
drawbacks of this response, however, are that road widening
is expensive, and construction could be inconvenient for
the community. Another consequence is that wider roads
could encourage faster traffic and longer risk-exposure
times for pedestrians. Therefore, it might work best if you
install pedestrian barricades if you widen roads, and you
may want to also increase crossing-signal time for higher-
risk pedestrians, as well. In doing so, this strategy could both
potentially curb jaywalking and still allow enough time for
higher-risk pedestrians to cross safely. Your agency should
consider the characteristics of people involved in pedestrian-
vehicle crashes before implementing this response. Note that
this solution is opposite to the idea of traffic calming.
19. Increasing the length of crossing signal intervals.

This response might be most useful at wider roads where
specific pedestrian groups (e.g., the elderly, people with limited
mobility) are frequently injured or killed because they do not
have enough time to cross safely. For reasons mentioned
above, this response might be necessary if your agency widens
roads to deter jaywalkers.
20. Improving sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways.

You should have damaged sidewalks repaired and congested
walkways widened. Your agency could reduce jaywalking-
related pedestrian-vehicle crashes by providing an acceptable
travel surface for pedestrians. Your agency might need to
cooperate with homeowners or apartment managers when
controlling sidewalk obstructions is their responsibility. If
the local government is responsible for trees planted along
sidewalks, the appropriate city agency should prune them to a
height that allows pedestrians to pass safely.
21. Encouraging pedestrians to cross at controlled

intersections. Midblock bus stops increase the risk
pedestrians will cross midblock, even when there is no
crossing. The city of San Diego relocated several bus
stops from midblock to locations closer to intersections.74
This strategy increased the use of marked crosswalks and
pedestrian signals at the intersections.
22. Increasing lighting near high-risk intersections

and pedestrian routes. To ensure that drivers can see
pedestrians at night, the city should install lights near high-
risk intersections and pedestrian routes. If lights are already
present in these types of areas, you should have their
brightness assessed and increased, if needed.
John Eck
A pedestrian safety island. This island is on a busy street bounding

a large university. It was created when the university built a student
housing complex on the opposite side of the street. It is marked by
signs, but does not have a light.
23. Providing midblock pedestrian islands when blocks

are long and streets are wide. If pedestrians have to walk
very long distances out of their way to cross a street, then
they are more likely to cross in midblock. Facilitating safe
crossing midblock is an option in such cases. When the
streets are wide, a safe haven in the middle of the street lets
pedestrians make two short crossings. Further, they have to
look only one way for oncoming traffic, rather than having
to look for vehicles coming from two directions. You should
ensure that the islands are clearly marked for pedestrians and
visible to drivers, so they can easily move around them but
still see pedestrians.
24. Providing marked midblock crossings on narrow

streets. In areas where pedestrian traffic and street crossing
is common, you can have designated midblock crossings
marked on the pavement and through signs. This notifies
drivers about pedestrians’ right-of-way in such crossings. You
often find such a response in shopping areas, on streets with
busy bus stops on both sides (thus facilitating transfers), and
around college campuses. Clearly, these crosswalks impede
vehicle traffic, so they are best used on streets where flow
speed is not essential and traffic calming is desirable.
In addition, raising crosswalks’ table higher than the road (so

they act like speed humps), and/or building crosswalks out of
textured material, can also draw drivers’ attention to them. In
snowy communities, however, such crosswalks might not be
viable due to snowplow damage.
25. Establishing parking regulations in low-visibility

areas. Cars parked on the street could flank some crossing
areas while cars parked at the end of driveways could block
sidewalks. Consequently, pedestrians might cross from
between cars parked where it is difficult to see oncoming
traffic, or enter roads to avoid parked cars. Therefore,
removing parked cars from such areas could increase both
pedestrian and driver visibility.
26. Creating pedestrian flag locations. The city of

Madison has installed pedestrian flags at 50 intersections as
part of the “Flags Over Dane County” program. These flags
are meant to make drivers aware of pedestrian traffic, causing
them to yield. Specifically, pedestrians first use red flags to
signal their intent to cross the street, then cross while still
holding the flags. Although flag-carrying pedestrians have
the right-of-way, they should not assume that carrying a flag
is a safeguard in itself. Pedestrians should still be cautious of
heavy vehicle traffic and the fact that some motorists might
not see a flag. For more information on Madison’s specific
strategy, see www.ci.madison.wi.us/police/pedestrianflags.
html.
27. Using portable pedestrian warning signs. You can use

portable warning signs to make both drivers and pedestrians
aware of pedestrian safety near crash hotspots. Portable signs
are likely less expensive than more-permanent environmental
changes. In addition, you can quickly install portable signs if
other crash hotspots develop.
28. Installing in-street yield-to-pedestrian signs. In-street

yield-to-pedestrian signs might be more visible to drivers than
pedestrian signs that are located near intersection sidewalks. In
Madison, in-street yield-to-pedestrian signs led to a significant
increase in drivers’ yielding to pedestrians in two out of
three test locations.75 At the site where researchers found no
improvement, the in-street yield sign was placed on a raised
median and farthest from vehicle travel lanes.76 Therefore,
this response’s effectiveness might depend on where you place
the signs and on the intersections’ characteristics.
Special Conditions
29. Maintaining walking surfaces in inclement weather.

If your community experiences snowy and icy weather,
your agency might want to encourage local government
and business owners to maintain safe walking surfaces. For
instance, perhaps snow removal and sidewalk de-icing near
dangerous intersections might enable pedestrians to avoid
crashes with cars.
30. Improving conditions for pedestrians with limited

mobility. In areas where pedestrians with limited mobility
represent a large proportion of the population, it might be
possible to design sidewalks to accommodate wheelchair/
scooter travel. At minimum, sidewalks should be smooth,
have no obstructions, and have useable curb cuts (i.e., they
do not fill with water, snow, or ice in inclement weather).
In addition, your agency could encourage pedestrians
with limited mobility to use high-visibility accessories on
their chairs and scooters. In any case, during scanning and
analysis, police should look at victims’ capabilities and
assess whether there is a separate problem associated with
a special population. If so, partnering with a local, state, or
national organization for such people is advisable. It is worth
noting that many of the same features that aid people with
movement-related limitations also help people without these

limitations (e.g., all pedestrians benefit from sidewalks without
buckled pavement, cracks, and water traps).
31. Making streets safer for children and teens. You

can apply most of the responses in this guide to specific
problems involving children and teens. However, there may
be particular considerations. Improving or creating recreation
sites that serve the needs of children and teens can shift their
play from streets to safe areas. But doing so will work only if
the recreation sites facilitate the play they are interested in: a
playground for toddlers will not serve the needs of 12- or 16-
year-olds, for example. Along walking routes to schools, it has
been common practice for crossing guards, parents, and older
children to provide street-crossing supervision.
Consulting with schools, recreation departments, parents, and

others involved with children and teens will be important in
crafting an effective response. For instance, the Hamilton-
Wentworth (Ontario) Police Department partnered with
various city departments, the board of education, parents’
associations, and other related traffic-safety councils
to develop KIDestrian.77 This strategy resulted in the
development and distribution of a pedestrian safety book,
along with kits that included a series of safety information
and practical exercises.78 In addition, you might consult with
older children and teens to understand what responses these
groups find most appealing.
32. Improving pedestrian safety in shopping-center

parking areas. You could improve parking areas with some
of the same measures used to make city streets safer for
pedestrians. For example, local commerce organizations
or business owners could install signs, crossing devices,
crosswalks, and lighting to increase visibility for both
pedestrians and drivers.
33. Monitoring construction sites. Your agency could

partner with builder associations to make sure pedestrian
detour routes are more convenient and safer to use. In
addition, your agency could make sure debris and other
construction materials do not block pedestrian paths.
34. Improving safety for workers at higher risk of

crashes. You could encourage the training of newly hired
workers in high-risk positions to avoid dangerous situations
and behaviors during orientation seminars. In addition,
high-visibility gear and equipment (e.g., reflective clothing,
vehicle warning lights) could also make workers more visible
to oncoming motorists. You should encourage agencies
whose employees work on the streets to adopt safer standard
operating procedures.
35. Separating pedestrians from highway entrance/exit

ramps. Building pedestrian tunnels and bridges near highway
ramps provides a place for pedestrians to walk that separates
them from merging traffic. However, some liabilities to
both structures exist. First, pedestrian tunnels could induce
the fear of being mugged. Therefore, tunnels should be
well lit and short and wide enough that someone, upon
entering, can see the other side. Second, tunnels should not
contain obstructions behind which people could hide. Third,
pedestrian bridges could become icy and dangerous in the
winter. Fourth, building both pedestrian tunnels and bridges
is very expensive. Fifth, some pedestrians might avoid these
structures because they require extra effort to descend or
climb stairs. Finally, overpasses can also create opportunities
for vandalism and throwing objects at vehicles passing below.
36. Relocating popular attractions or services. When

nearby attractions or services are across the street from where
§ See Response Guide No. 5, Crime
many residents live or from parking facilities or locations, it
Prevention Publicity Campaigns.
might be possible to relocate such places on the side of the
road where most people live or park, so they do not need to
cross the road. Relocating businesses is likely very expensive
and would require major rezoning. In addition, established
business owners might be reluctant to move their location.
Responses With Limited Effectiveness
37. Redesigning dangerous vehicles. Vehicles, in particular

light truck vehicles, should be redesigned to minimize
the harm caused in pedestrian-vehicle crashes. However,
redesigning vehicles likely does little to reduce the actual
occurrence of pedestrian-vehicle crashes. Therefore, the
response is largely limited to reducing the severity of the
crash rather than the likelihood of the crash itself. Though
redesigning vehicles is beyond any single local government’s
ability, restricting which types of vehicles can use particular
streets may be useful in some circumstances.
38. Launching a general pedestrian-safety education/

awareness campaign. As mentioned, publicity campaigns
used to educate the public on pedestrian-vehicle crashes
should target a specific audience, ideally potential victims
and offenders.§ Therefore, informing the general public
about pedestrian-vehicle crashes is probably a waste of
resources as such campaigns may not reach the relatively few
people who need to know. Furthermore, a general education
campaign would not target the times and places most salient
to the pedestrians and drivers involved. Outside of the crash
hotspots, bill boards, radio and television spots, and other
media efforts are unlikely to convey the message to the right
people when they can use it.
39. Launching a general enforcement campaign against

jaywalkers. Enforcement is effective when highly focused,
and then only as an interim solution. Citywide enforcement
campaigns to improve pedestrian safety are unlikely to work
for four reasons: 1) police are spread too thin to create a
strong deterrent; 2) the average patrol officer has many other
higher-priority tasks; 3) police will direct most of the effort
at locations where pedestrian-vehicle crash risks are low; and
4) broadscale enforcement undermines police authority by
increasing negative police-citizen interactions.
Considering a Combined Response
Some communities could experience multiple factors that

cause a pedestrian injury and fatality problem. For instance,
it is possible that your community has high-risk areas due to
pedestrian behavior and vehicle and driver factors, as well as
structural issues. The following example shows how the city
of San Diego used enforcement, education, and engineering
to address pedestrian and structural factors.
A Combined Response to Pedestrian-Vehicle

Crashes in San Diego79
In 1998, the city of San Diego experienced 24 fatal crashes

involving pedestrians, with pedestrians’ being at fault 80 percent
of the time. In 1999, the city experienced a 50 percent increase
in fatal crashes involving pedestrians, with pedestrians’ being at
fault 72 percent of the time. Analysts discovered that the problem
disproportionately occurred along two main streets.
Police used the SARA (Scanning, Analysis, Response, and

Assessment) process to address the problem. Following analysis,
the San Diego Police Department developed a response that
included enforcement, education, and engineering strategies.
The strategy involved these elements:
Enforcement: A multiunit approach to aggressive jaywalking

enforcement resulted in 859 pedestrian-officer contacts.
Education: Officers from the Traffic Safety Office developed a

brochure outlining pedestrian safety and responsibility. In addition,
media coverage highlighted the problem of pedestrian-vehicle
crashes, applicable laws, and the police department’s response.
Engineering: The problem was related to midblock bus stops, where

riders exited and crossed the street midblock rather than walking
to the nearest pedestrian-regulated intersection. Therefore, the city
moved eight different bus stops from midblock locations closer to
intersections (thereby increasing the use of marked crosswalks and
pedestrian signals).
Later evaluation revealed that there was nearly a 20 percent

reduction in the pedestrian-vehicle crash rate in the project area.
Appendix A 61
Appendix A: Summary of General

Considerations and Responses to Pedestrian
Injuries and Fatalities

The table below summarizes the responses to pedestrian injuries and
fatalities, the mechanism by which they are intended to work, the
conditions under which they ought to work best, and some factors
you should consider before implementing a particular response. It is
critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you
can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases,
an effective strategy will involve implementing several different
responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in
reducing or solving the problem.
Response Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If… Considerations
No.
General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy
1 36 Designating A subunit …your Creating a subunit
a special within your community’s within your agency
pedestrian- agency focuses pedestrian- may require
safety task on enforcing safety problems funds to support
force within pedestrian are common additional staffing,
your agency regulations and serious training, and
equipment
2 36 Training city Educating …planners take In some cases,

planners to planners on training seriously “designing out”
consider pedestrian safety and actually put unsafe walking
pedestrian could result in it into practice conditions might
safety “designing out” and structural not be possible
unsafe walking modification due to training
conditions or structural
modification
costs; your agency
would also have to
establish a working
relationship with
city planners or
those responsible
for road design
No.
3 37 Creating Officially …police enforce For reasons
ordinances regulates ordinances mentioned above,
to reduce situations that seriously, police may not
pedestrian- could increase especially give high priority
vehicle crashes the crash risks at high-risk to enforcing safety
locations ordinances
4 37 Guarding against Your agency …your agency Regardless of

negative public should work partners with early efforts to
reactions with residents, residents, work with the
businesses, and businesses, and public, there will
community community still likely be
groups to allay groups early in some controversy
their fears about the problem- surrounding
the negative solving process problem
impact of displacement and
pedestrian safety certain strategies’
strategies fairness
Specific Responses to Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Pedestrian Behavior
5 42 Establishing It increases …enforcement An enforcement
hotspot-specific the threat is focused crackdown may
crackdowns of citations on hotspots, not be an adequate
on jaywalking and penalties concentrated at long-term
(immediate) known times in response; it could
hotspots, seen also unnecessarily
as necessary by anger the public
the community,
considered
high priority,
and coupled
with sufficient
penalties
6 43 Launching High-risk …the awareness Avoid campaigns

location-specific pedestrians are campaign targets that are too
pedestrian- educated on the pedestrians at general because
safety risks associated high risk and is the message may
education/ with pedestrian- close to where not reach the
awareness vehicle crashes the problem intended audience
campaigns occurs or address the
(early) problem
Appendix A 63
No.
7 45 Coordinating When …pedestrian- Adjusting signals
crossing pedestrians vehicle crashes to facilitate
devices to cross one street, occur where uninterrupted
facilitate the adjacent pedestrian walking
uninterrupted crossing walking sequences
walking paths signal is timed sequences are might disrupt
(immediate) to allow an restricted by vehicle flow,
uninterrupted lengthy time causing traffic
walking intervals congestion;
sequence in addition, a
timed crossing
sequence might
not accommodate
all pedestrians’
speed
8 45 Installing It provides a …your Countdown

pedestrian timer indicating community’s signals still allow
countdown- how much time pedestrians pedestrians to
timer signals is left to cross jaywalk cross against
at problem the street or because of the “Don’t Walk”
intersections how much time uncertainty of signals, unlike
(immediate) is left before a the waiting time pedestrian
“Walk” signal before they can barricades
flashes cross the street
9 46 Addressing It targets unsafe …if police The police alone
pedestrian pedestrian and other should not bear
drinking behavior as stakeholders the burden
behavior (early) a result of (i.e., bar of addressing
drinking alcohol owners) pedestrian
at hotspot drinking behavior
locations
collaborate
10 47 Enforcing Enforcement …enforcement Increased
speeding may deter campaigns enforcement may
violations and drivers from are waged in increase traffic
other unsafe speeding high-risk areas congestion or
driver behaviors where speeding cause further
at high-risk is causing distractions; this
locations (early) the problem response could
also be hard to
maintain over a
long time period
No.
11 47 Increasing During traffic …enforcement Implementing
driver’s stops, police strategies are in changes in state
perceptions of distribute place to increase driver’s exams
risk regarding pedestrian- the distribution could be difficult
pedestrian awareness of pedestrian- for communities
injuries and information; awareness dealing with a
fatalities (early) also, driver’s information local problem
classes/exams
could be
redesigned
to emphasize
pedestrian
awareness
12 48 Diverting or The use of …your agency Traffic redirection
calming traffic speed bumps or accurately could create
near pedestrian- route redirection identifies high- high-risk areas on
vehicle crash slows traffic risk areas adjacent streets
hotspots (early in high-risk
and immediate) areas or lessens
congestion in
those areas
13 48 Addressing DUI check …your DUI checkpoints
drunken drivers points deter pedestrian injury could increase
(early) drunken drivers and fatality traffic congestion,
from driving in problem is create additional
dense pedestrian concentrated distractions,
areas in heavily and disrupt
trafficked neighborhood
nightlife districts businesses
Immediate Physical Environment

14 49 Constructing It prevents …your agency Installation
pedestrian pedestrians has properly of pedestrian
barriers to from jaywalking planned to barriers could be
separate foot by physically identify high expensive and
traffic from taking away the frequency crash disliked by hurried
vehicles at opportunity to sites where pedestrians
pedestrian- do so the barriers
vehicle crash would be most
hotspots effective
Appendix A 65
No.
15 50 Installing curb Street curbs …poor driver/ Curb extensions
extensions are extended pedestrian put pedestrians
at problem into roads to visibility or closer to moving
locations narrow crossing long crossing traffic; in addition,
distances and distances curb extensions
improve driver/ are creating could potentially
pedestrian problems create several
visibility at infrastructure
intersections or problems (see
midblock areas description above)
16 50 Installing It initiates …a cause of Installation

crossing crossing jaywalking in of automated
systems that beams when your community crossing systems
include a pedestrians relates to rushed might be too
pedestrian approach pedestrians costly, and it
detection crosswalk (pace of life) might upset
system who might drivers by
be more restricting their
compliant if mobility; in
given automatic addition, these
right-of-way crossing systems
could be visually
confusing to
pedestrians and
drivers
17 51 Installing Traditional …crashes SYGs are not
fluorescent pedestrian occur during as effective (i.e.,
strong yellow- warning signs daytime hours, less reflective) in
green (SYG) are replaced with when reflective low ambient-light
pedestrian signs made from material is conditions
warning signs highly reflective most visible
and more-
visible material
18 51 Designing Increasing …many of your Redesigning streets

wider roads crossing community’s may be costly and
and increasing distances could pedestrian- may inconvenience
existing roads’ create the vehicle crashes travel ease during
width to deter illusion of risk, occur on narrow construction; this
jaywalking keeping some streets could also increase
pedestrians from the crash risk for
jaywalking specific groups of
pedestrians (i.e.,
the elderly) by
increasing crossing
distance; if this is
the case, increasing
crossing signal
intervals may be
necessary
No.
19 52 Increasing It adjusts …longer Longer crossing
the length of crossing devices walking intervals intervals mean
crossing signal to increase the are needed at that traffic
intervals time pedestrians wider roads; will stop at
have to cross the also, it works intersections
street best if the longer; this
area has a high could result in
proportion of traffic congestion
slower moving at certain
pedestrians intersections
20 52 Improving Better walking …a high Sidewalk
sidewalks and conditions frequency of improvement and
other pedestrian may provide pedestrian- redevelopment
walkways pedestrians vehicle crashes may be costly
with more occur near and temporarily
incentive to stay locations where inconvenience
on designated sidewalks are pedestrian travel
walking paths damaged and
overcrowded
21 52 Encouraging Public …your Rerouting bus
pedestrians transportation community stops may
to cross at systems establish relies heavily make public
controlled pickup/drop-off on public transportation
intersections spots near areas transportation more time-
with crossing consuming and
devices less convenient
for riders
22 52 Increasing Better visibility …high-risk Installing and
lighting near may help areas are marked maintaining lights
high-risk pedestrians and by inadequate may be costly
intersections drivers assess lighting and
and pedestrian the safety of poor visibility
routes walking/driving
conditions
23 53 Providing It allows two …pedestrians Installing islands
midblock shorter crossings have to travel may require
pedestrian when streets are long distances extensive road
islands when wide to cross construction and
blocks are long certain streets; costs
and streets are also, islands
wide should be
clearly marked
and visible
to vehicles
Appendix A 67
No.
24 53 Providing Midblock ...street crossing Midblock
marked crossings are is common crosswalks impede
midblock marked with away from vehicle traffic and
crossings on signs to calm intersections and should be used
narrow streets traffic and areas without on streets where
alert drivers crossing devices flow speed is not
to pedestrians’ essential
right-of-way
25 54 Establishing It removes …they are Removing parking
parking parked cars established at spots could
regulations in that restrict locations where increase moving
low-visibility the visibility of pedestrians traffic if drivers
areas both pedestrians frequently cross cannot find
and drivers streets between parking places;
cars also, drivers
may avoid such
areas due to the
inconvenience;
therefore, this
strategy may not
be suitable for
business districts
26 54 Creating The city installs …flags are Pedestrian flags
pedestrian flag warning flags at installed at risky might not be
locations intersections or locations and as noticeable
other crossing are visible to or effective as
areas both drivers and more permanent
pedestrians environmental
changes; also,
pedestrians should
still use caution
while crossing,
as there is no
guarantee drivers
will notice the
flags
27 54 Using portable The city places …warning signs Portable warning
pedestrian portable are installed at signs might not
warning signs warning signs at risky locations be as noticeable
intersections or and are visible or effective as
other crossing to both drivers more-permanent
areas and pedestrians environmental
changes
No.
28 55 Installing in- The city installs …drivers have These signs’
street yield-to- pedestrian signs difficulty seeing effectiveness
pedestrian signs in the middle of pedestrian might depend on
roads to warn warning signs where they are
drivers to yield that are posted placed (e.g., which
to pedestrian near sidewalks intersections)
traffic at intersection
crosswalks
Special Conditions
29 55 Maintaining It makes walking …your Substances used
walking surfaces surfaces safe and community to clear sidewalks
in inclement accommodating, experiences (i.e. de-icers, salt)
weather even in poor winter weather could damage
weather that includes surfaces, resulting
ice and snow in additional costs
30 55 Improving It makes …it is Improvements to
conditions for sidewalks more implemented in sidewalks could be
pedestrians with usable and areas with a high costly and benefit
limited mobility pedestrians with proportion of only a few
limited mobility pedestrians with
more visible limited mobility
31 56 Making streets It addresses the …special You need to

safer for specific needs circumstances examine carefully
children and of children and put children the particular
teens teens and teens at needs of children
particular risk and teens and
bring older
children and teens
brought into the
problem-solving
process
32 56 Improving It uses measures …safety Surrounding
pedestrian similar to those measures are businesses might
safety in aimed at making aimed at both have to cover the
shopping-center city streets and pedestrians expense of the
parking areas intersections and drivers, safety measures
safer for since both are
pedestrians distracted in
parking areas
Appendix A 69
No.
33 57 Monitoring It ensures that …your Construction sites
construction pedestrian agency forms are temporary
sites routes are partnerships and frequently
convenient and with building change locations;
accessible companies so changing
that monitoring conditions could
continues make monitoring
throughout difficult;
the project’s therefore, your
duration agency could
work with local
government
to require
contractors to
agree to site
monitoring at the
permitting stage
of construction
34 57 Improving It trains high- …workers take Workers may not
safety for risk workers the training use safe practices
workers at to consider seriously unless they are
higher risk dangerous regulated
of crashes conditions and
behavior while
on the job; also,
workers can use
special gear to
make themselves
more visible
to drivers
35 57 Separating It provides safe …pedestrian Various
pedestrians walking routes tunnels and unintended
from highway for pedestrians bridges are consequences of
entrance/exit near high-speed built so that both structures
ramps traffic pedestrians might not be
are physically considered before
separated from construction; see
merging traffic above for possible
consequences
36 58 Relocating Frequently …a crash Relocating
popular patronized stores, hotspot results businesses is likely
attractions restaurants, or from many very expensive
or services other businesses residents having and would require
are relocated to continually major rezoning;
to the side of cross from a also, established
the road where central location business owners
people live so to patronize might be reluctant
they do not need attractions to move their
to cross the or services location
street
No.
Responses With Limited Effectiveness
37 58 Redesigning Vehicle body …problematic This response
dangerous changes can designs (e.g., requires
vehicles minimize the light truck cooperation with
seriousness vehicles) are government
of injury and identified and agencies
chance of death improved and vehicle
upon collision manufacturers,
which may be
beyond your
agency’s scope
38 58 Launching It uses the …the problem Most problems

a general mass media is widespread affect only certain
pedestrian- to promote and affects people during
safety pedestrian safety many people in certain times;
education/ to a general your community therefore, a
aware-ness audience general message
campaign may not reach
those who would
benefit the most
39 59 Launching Police crack …crashes It can create

a general down on are common, perceptions of
enforcement jaywalking largely due to racial profiling,
campaign throughout the jaywalking, and puts police in
against jurisdiction there are no conflict with
jaywalkers concentrations many citizens who
are not at risk,
maybe expensive,
and is difficult to
maintain
* “Immediate” refers to responses that take effect just moments before a possible crash. “Early” marks responses that take
effect long before potential crashes. See Figure 3 and accompanying text.
Appendix B 71
Appendix B: Web Resources for Improving

Pedestrian Safety
Government
The Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System
“The Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection

System are meant to provide practitioners with the latest
information available for improving the safety and mobility of
those who walk. The online tools provide the user with a list
of possible engineering, education, or enforcement treatments
to improve pedestrian safety and/or mobility based on user
input about a specific location” (source: from the URL below,
accessed January 6, 2007). www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/
index.cfm.
Federal Highway Administration: Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research

Page
It contains reports on effective safety procedures, and other

information useful for understanding pedestrian safety.
www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/pedbike.htm.
National Transportation Library
It contains various reports, documents, and other

publications on safety issues. http://ntl.bts.gov/display.
cfm?sub=e2&cat=5.
Advocacy
Active Living Research
“The chief aim of Active Living Research is to increase

knowledge about active living by supporting research to
identify environmental factors and policies with potential

to substantially increase levels of physical activity among
Americans of all ages, incomes and ethnic backgrounds”
(source: from the URL below, accessed January 6, 2007).
www.activelivingresearch.org/index.php/What_We_are_
Learning/117.
National Center for Bicycling and Walking
“The mission of the National Center for Bicycling & Walking

(NCBW) is to help create bicycle-friendly and walkable
communities across North America by encouraging and
supporting the efforts of individuals, organizations, and
agencies” (source: from the URL below, accessed January 6,
2007). www.bikewalk.org.
Partnership for a Walkable America
“The Partnership for a Walkable America (PWA) is a national

coalition working to improve the conditions for walking in
America and to increase the number of Americans who walk
regularly. The members are national governmental agencies
and non-profit organizations concerned about three main
areas: health, safety and the environment” (source: from the
URL below, accessed January 6, 2007). www.Walkableamerica.
Org.
Safe Kids Worldwide
“Safe Kids Worldwide is a global network of organizations

whose mission is to prevent accidental childhood injury,
a leading killer of children 14 and under. More than 450
coalitions in 15 countries bring together health and safety
experts, educators, corporations, foundations, governments,
and volunteers to educate and protect families” (source: from
the URL below, accessed January 6, 2007). www.safekids.org.
Appendix C 73
Appendix C: Developing a Comprehensive

Response to Pedestrian-Vehicle Crashes
This guide has emphasized the interaction of three fac-

tors—pedestrians, drivers, and the physical environment—that
cause pedestrian-vehicle crashes. This interaction is reflected
in the pedestrian-vehicle crash triangle (Figure 1), and in the
process of pedestrian-vehicle crashes (Figure 3). The practical
implication is that a comprehensive response should address
more than one factor: pedestrians, drivers, physical environ-
ment, early decisions, and immediate decisions. The following
checklist is based on this insight.
This checklist also uses the five main categories of situational

crime prevention responses (for more information, see www.
popcenter.org): increasing risks, increasing effort, decreasing
rewards, decreasing excuses, and decreasing provocations.
• Increasing risks involves making the perceived penalty

for misbehavior more likely. For example, increased en-
forcement of speeding or jaywalking increases the risk of
fines for people who do so.
• Increasing effort involves making it harder to engage in
troublesome behavior. For example, traffic calming forces
drivers to slow down by making it more difficult to speed.
• Decreasing rewards decreases the gain from misbehav-
ior. For example, if pedestrians cross midblock to catch
buses, moving bus stops to corners removes the incentive
to cross midblock.
• Decreasing excuses involves making it more difficult for
people to justify their misbehavior. For example, provid-
ing clearly marked crossing points for pedestrians reduces
their ability to claim they did not know where to cross.
• Decreasing provocations involves reducing inducements

to misbehave. For example, altering crossing-walk timing
to facilitate pedestrian movement reduces pedestrians’
perceived need to jaywalk.
Combining the factors discussed in this guide with situational

prevention techniques reveals 25 intervention categories (see
Table 1). A comprehensive response involves using multiple
situational approaches against multiple causes. This approach
ensures that one intervention’s weaknesses are offset by other
interventions’ strengths.
In the example shown in the table, the response consists of

types of four interventions involving pedestrians (immediate
decisions), drivers (early decisions), and the physical environ-
ment. These four interventions involve four different situ-
ational prevention types: increasing risks to drivers, decreasing
drivers’ excuses for speeding, decreasing pedestrian provoca-
tions to jaywalk, and increasing the difficulty of jaywalking.
Notice that because speeding enforcement may not be sustain-
able, the signs remain as a reminder. Even so, in this example,
police may have to employ periodic speeding crackdowns.
Lastly, the “Planning Framework for Preventing Pedestrian-

Vehicle Crashes” checklist is designed to provide you with a
useful planning tool when developing a response. Supervisors
can also use it for approving a response before implementa-
tion. Finally, you can use it to document the relationships
among the interventions you apply.
Appendix C 75
Table 1
Example of a Comprehensive Response
Situational Pedestrians Drivers & Vehicles Physical
Prevention Type Environment
Early Immediate Early Immediate
Increase Risks Enforce
speeding in
an area
Install pedestrian
Increase Effort barricades
midblock
Decrease
Rewards
Decrease Erect signs

Excuses warning of
pedestrians
Decrease Coordinate
Provocations crossing-
light timing
Planning Framework for Preventing Pedestrian-Vehicle Crashes
Problem: ____________________________________ Date: ______________________
INTERVENTION CLASSIFICATIONS
SITUATIONAL Early Pedestrian Immediate Early Driver Immediate Physical
PREVENTION TYPE Decisions Pedestrian Decisions Driver Environment
Decisions Decisions
Increase
Risk
Increase
Effort
Reduce Rewards
Remove Excuses
Reduce Provocations
TOTAL
INTERVENTIONS
Planning Assessment*
1. Have you used at least one intervention for pedestrians, drivers, and the physical environment?
Yes p No p
2. If not, which factor is lacking an intervention? ________________________________________
3. Have you used at least two different situational prevention types for the interventions?
Yes p No p
4. If not, which situational prevention types are not used? _________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
*You should consider changes or additions to your overall action plan if you answered “No” to any
of the above questions.
Endnotes 77
Endnotes
1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in Lee and

Abdel-Aty (2005), p. 775.
2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2005).
3 Ernst et al. (2004).
4 Campbell et al. (2004).
8 Lee and Abdel-Aty (2005).
9 Teanby, Gorman, and Boot (1993).
10 Mullen, Cooper, and Driskell (1990).
12 Do (2002).
13 Moudon et al. (1997).
14 Hill and Roemer (1977).
15 Wilgoren (1999).
16 Umhoefer (2000).
17 Umhoefer (2000).
18 U.S. Bureau of the Census (2005).
19 Collins (1998).
20 Hamed (2001).
21 Hatfield and Murphy (2007).
22 Carole Millar Research (1998).
25 Carole Millar Research (1998).
26 Rehabilitation Alcohol Test, in Campbell et al. (2004).
27 Redmon (2003).
28 Markowitz et al. (2006).
29 Walmsley and Lewis (1989).
30 Keegan and O’Mahoney (2003).
31 Cui and Nambisan (2003).
32 Jason and Liotta (1982).
33 Yagil (2000).
34 Giacopassi and Forde (2000).
35 Giacopassi and Forde (2000).
36 Harrell (1991).
37 Mullen, Cooper, and Driskell (1990).
38 Russell, Wilson, and Jenkins (1976).
39 Harkey and Zegeer (2004).
42 Roudsari et al. (2004).
43 Cui and Nambisan (2003).
44 Chu, Guttenplan, and Baltes (2004).
45 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1989).
46 New York City Department of Transportation (n.d.).
47 Moudon et al. (1997).
50 Ernst et al. (2004).
51 Hamilton-Wentworth Police Department (1994).
52 Davis and Huelke, in Campbell et al. (2004).
53 Associated Press (2007).
54 Associated Press (2007).
56 Hamed (2001).
57 Blomberg, in Campbell et al. (2004).
58 Sonnenberg (2006).
63 Smith (2005–2007).
64 Berger, in Retting, Ferguson, and McCartt (2003), p. 9.
65 Ostram and Ericksson (2001).
Endnotes 79
66 Los Angeles Department of Public Works (2007).

67 Los Angeles Department of Public Works (2007).
68 Hakkert, Gitelman, and Ben-Shabat (2002).
69 Hakkert, Gitelman, and Ben-Shabat (2002).
70 Clark, Hummer, and Dutt (1996).
71 Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering
Division, Arlington (Virginia) (n.d.).
74 San Diego Police Department (2001).
75 City of Madison Department of Transportation, Traffic
Engineering Division (1999).
76 City of Madison Department of Transportation, Traffic
Engineering Division (1999).
79 San Diego Police Department (2001).
References 81
References
Associated Press (2007). “Officials: Street Water Sales

Risky.” Wisconsin State Journal, July 2, p. C3.
Campbell, B., C. Zegeer, H. Huang and M. Cynecki (2004).

A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States
and Abroad. McLean (Virginia): U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Carole Millar Research (1998). Alcohol and the Pedestrian

Road Casualty. Development Department Research
Programme Research Findings No. 49. Edinburgh:
Scottish Office Central Research Unit.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1989).

“Current Trends: Queens Boulevard Pedestrian Safety
Project–New York City.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report 38(5): 61–63.
Chu, X., M. Guttenplan and M. Baltes (2004). “Why

People Cross Where They Do: The Role of the Street
Environment.” Unpublished.
City of Madison Department of Transportation, Traffic

Engineering Division (1999). “Field Evaluation of
Experimental In-Street Yield to Pedestrian Signs.”
Submitted to Federal Highway Administration.
Clark, K., J. Hummer and N. Dutt (1996). “Field

Evaluation of Fluorescent Strong Yellow-Green
Pedestrian Warning Signs.” Transportation Research Record
1538: 39-46.
Collins, G. (1998). “Walking the Walk, Against the Light.”

New York Times, January 14, p. 3B.
Cui, Z., and S. Nambisan (2003). “Methodology for

Evaluating the Safety of Midblock Pedestrian
Crossings.” Transportation Research Record 1828:75–82.
Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering

Division, Arlington (Virginia) (n.d.). “ITE Pedestrian
Project Award Application”. Retrieved March 26, 2007.
www.ite.org/activeliving/files/C-2-C_ppa019.pdf.
Do, A. (2002). “Walking the Safety Walk.” Public Roads

66(2):2–6.
Ernst, M., L. Bailey, A. Canby and K. McCarty (2004).

Mean Streets 2004: How Far Have We Come? Pedestrian
Safety, 1994-2003. Washington, D.C.: Surface
Transportation Policy Project.
Giacopassi, D., and D. Forde (2000). “Broken Windows,

Crumpled Fenders, and Crime.” Journal of Criminal Justice
28(4):397–405.
Hakkert, A., V. Gitelman and E. Ben-Shabat (2002). “An

Evaluation of Crosswalk Warning Systems: Effects
on Pedestrian and Vehicle Behaviour.” Transportation
Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior 5(4):275–
292.
Hamed, M. (2001). “Analysis of Pedestrians’ Behavior at

Pedestrian Crossing.” Safety Science 38(1):63–82.
Hamilton-Wentworth Police Department (1994).

“KIDestrians: Child Pedestrian Safety.” Submission for
the Herman Goldstein Project Award for Excellence in
Problem-Oriented Policing (finalist).
References 83
Harkey, D., and C. Zegeer (2004). “PEDSAFE: Pedestrian

Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System.”
McLean (Virginia): U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
Harrell, W. (1991). “Factors Influencing Pedestrian

Cautiousness in Crossing Streets.” Journal of Social
Psychology 131(3):367–372.
Hatfield, J., and S. Murphy (2007). “The Effects of

Mobile Phone Use on Pedestrian Crossing Behaviour
at Signalised and Unsignalised Intersections.” Accident
Analysis and Prevention 39(1):197–205.
Hill, M., and T. Roemer (1977). “Toward an Explanation

of Jaywalking Behavior: A Linear Regression
Approach.” Man-Environment Systems 7(6):342–349.
Jason, L., and R. Liotta (1982). “Pedestrian Jaywalking

Under Facilitating and Nonfacilitating Conditions.”
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 15(3):469–473.
Keegan, O., and M. O’Mahony (2003). “Modifying

Pedestrian Behaviour.” Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice 37(10):889–901.
Lee, C., and M. Abdel-Aty (2005). “Comprehensive

Analysis of Vehicle-Pedestrian Crashes at Intersections
in Florida.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 37(4):775–
786.
Los Angeles Department of Public Works (2007). “Slow

Down LA County: Neighborhood Traffic Management
Program”. Retrieved March 25, 2007. http://ladpw.org/
TNL/NTMP/Page_02.cfm.
Markowitz, F., S. Sciortino, J. Fleck, and B. Yee (2006).

“Pedestrian Countdown Signals: Experience with an
Extensive Pilot Installation.” ITE Journal 76(1):43–48.
Moudon, A., P. Hess, M. Snyder, and K. Stanilov (1997).

Effects of Site Design on Pedestrian Travel in Mixed-Use,
Medium-Density Environments. Olympia: Washington State
Department of Transportation.
Mullen, B., C. Cooper, and J. Driskell (1990). “Jaywalking

as a Function of Model Behavior.” Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin 16(2):320–330.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National

Center for Statistics and Analysis (2005). “Traffic Safety
Facts: 2004 Data.” Washington, D.C.: National Center
for Statistics and Analysis.
New York City Department of Transportation (n.d.).

“Queens Boulevard Pedestrian Safety Study.”
Ostrom, M., and A. Eriksson (2001). “Pedestrian Fatalities

and Alcohol.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 33(2):173–
180.
Redmon, T. (2003). “Assessing the Attitudes and Behaviors

of Pedestrians and Drivers in Traffic Situations.” ITE
Journal 7(3):26–30.
Retting, R., S. Ferguson and A. McCartt (2003). “A Review

of Evidence-Based Traffic Engineering Measures
Designed To Reduce Pedestrian-Motor Vehicle
Crashes.” American Journal of Public Health 93(9):1456–
1463.
References 85
Roudsari, B., C. Mock, R. Kaufman, D. Grossman, B.

Henary and J. Crandall (2004). “Pedestrian Crashes:
Higher Injury Severity and Mortality Rate for Light
Truck Vehicles Compared With Passenger Vehicles.”
Injury Prevention 10(3):154–158.
Russell, J., D. Wilson and J. Jenkins (1976). “Information

Properties of Jaywalking Models as determinants of
Imitated Jaywalking: An Extension of Model Sex, Race
and Number.” Sociometry 39(3):270–273.
San Diego Police Department (2001). “Project To Address

and Reduce the Number of Traffic Collisions Involving
Pedestrians.” Submission for the Herman Goldstein
Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.
Smith, Susan (2005–2007). Shawnee Police Department.

Communication with J. Eck.
Sonnenberg, B. (2006). “Put Your Best Foot Forward.”

Time International, July 24, p. 17.
Teanby, D., D. Gorman and D. Boot (1993). “Pedestrian

Accidents on Merseyside: The Case for Criminalization
of Jaywalking.” Injury 24(1):10–12.
Umhoefer, D. (2000). “Ticket Blitz Has Winners, Losers.”

Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, June 18, p. 015A.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (2005). “2005 American

Community Survey.” Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Walmsley, D., and G. Lewis (1989). “The Pace of

Pedestrian Flows in Cities.” Environment and Behavior
21(2):123–150.
Wilgoren, J. (1999). “Cross at Green? No. In Between:

Only a Few Jaywalkers Are Getting Tickets, or Qualms.”
New York Times, April 9, p. 1B.
Yagil, D. (2000). “Beliefs, Motives and Situational Factors

Related to Pedestrians’ Self-Reported Behavior at
Signal-Controlled Crossings.” Transportation Research Part
F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior 3(1):1–13.
About the Authors 87
About the Authors
Justin A. Heinonen
Justin A. Heinonen is currently a doctoral student at the

University of Cincinnati’s Division of Criminal Justice.
Heinonen is also a research associate in the University of
Cincinnati’s Policing Institute, where he is currently working
on the Uptown Consortium project. This project involves
providing consortium members with ongoing analyses
of crime problems and hot spots in uptown Cincinnati,
recommending the most effective responses for these
locations, and assessing the effectiveness of each response
in terms of crime reduction. His specific research interests
include situational crime prevention, crime mapping, white-
collar crime, and victimology. Heinonen holds a bachelor’s
degree in criminal justice from the University of Toledo, and
a master’s degree in criminal justice from Bowling Green State
University.
John E. Eck
John E. Eck is a criminal justice professor at the University

of Cincinnati, where he teaches police effectiveness, criminal
justice policy, research methods and crime prevention. His
research has focused on the development of problem-oriented
policing, police effectiveness, crime patterns, and crime
prevention. Eck was a member of the National Academy of
Sciences’ Committee to Review Research on Police Policy
and Practices. He is an individual affiliate of the Center for
Problem-Oriented Policing. Eck is the coauthor (with Ronald
V. Clarke) of Crime Analysis for Problem-Solvers: In 60 Small
Steps, as well as the author or coauthor of many publications
on problem-oriented policing, crime mapping, and crime
prevention. Eck received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees
from the University of Michigan, and his doctorate from the
University of Maryland’s Department of Criminology.
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 89
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police
Problem-Specific Guides series:
1. Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott.

2001. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2
2. Street Prostitution, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-
932582-01-0
3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001.
ISBN: 1-932582-02-9
4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. Rana
Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7
5. False Burglar Alarms, 2nd Edition. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-
932582-04-5
6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001.
ISBN: 1-932582-05-3
7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1
8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001.
ISBN: 1-932582-07-X
9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8
10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke.
2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6
11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X
12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8
13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6
14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4
15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.
ISBN: 1-932582-14-2
16. Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition. Michael S.
Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-15-0
17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002.
ISBN: 1-932582-16-9
18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002.
ISBN: 1-932582-17-7
19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5
20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly.
Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3
21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003.
ISBN: 1-932582-27-4
22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004.
ISBN: 1-932582-30-4
23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A.
Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2
24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 2004.
ISBN: 1-932582-33-9
25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-35-3
26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glensor and Kenneth J. Peak.
2004. ISBN: 1-932582-36-3
27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-39-8
28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004.
ISBN: 1-932582-42-8
29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004.
ISBN: 1-932582-43-6
30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005.
ISBN: 1-932582-41-X
31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike
Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2
32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005.
ISBN: 1-932582-46-0
33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005.
ISBN: 1-932582-47-9
34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-50-9
35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005.
ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7
36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B.
Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6
37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1932582-56-8
38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. Newman.
2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2
39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John

E. Eck. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6
40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006.
ISBN: 1-932582-63-0
41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley
and Stephen Smallbone. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-65-7
42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006.
ISBN: 1-932582-67-3
43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction
Sites. Rachel Boba and Roberto Santos. 2006.
ISBN: 1-932582-00-2
44. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Rob Guerette. 2007.
ISBN: 1-932582-72-X
45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007.
ISBN: 1-932582-74-6
46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets
and Driveways. Todd Keister. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-
76-2
47. Drive-By Shootings. Kelly Dedel. 2007.
ISBN: 1-932582-77-0
48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007.
ISBN: 1-932582-78-9
49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and
Diana York. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-79-7
50. Traffic Congestion Around Schools.
Nancy G. La Vigne. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-82-7
51. Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities.
Justin A. Heinonen and John E. Eck. 2007.
ISBN: 1-932582-83-5
Response Guides series:
1. The Benefits and Consequences of Police

Crackdowns. Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X
2. Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should
You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004.
ISBN: 1-932582-41-X
3. Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety
Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein.
2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X
4. Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe.
2006 ISBN: 1-932582-58-4
5. Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns. Emmanuel
Barthe. 2006 ISBN: 1-932582-66-5
Problem-Solving Tools series:
1. Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002.
ISBN: 1-932582-19-3
2. Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A.
Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7
3. Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem
Solving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5
4. Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm
Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1
5. Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety
Problems. Sharon Chamard. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2
6. Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke
and John E. Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-75-4
7. Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown
and Michael S. Scott. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-80-0
8. Using Crime Prevention Through Enviornmental
Design in Problem Solving. Diane Zahm. 2007.
ISBN: 1-932582-81-9
Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police
Problem-Specific Guides
Abandoned Vehicles
Bicycle Theft
Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues
Child Abuse
Crime and Disorder in Parks
Transient Encampments
Problem-Solving Tools
Designing a Problem Analysis System
Displacement
Response Guides
Enhancing Lighting
Sting Operations
For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for

Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call
the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit
COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.
Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!
Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website

at www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help
you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your
community, including:
www.PopCenter.org
• Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides
• Interactive training exercises
• Online access to research and police practices
• Online problem analysis module
• Recommended readings in problem-oriented policing and
situational crime prevention
• A complete listing of other POP Guides
• A listing of forthcoming POP Guides.
Designed for police and those who work with them to

address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great
resource in problem-oriented policing.
For More Information:
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770
Visit COPS Online at the address listed below.

e090725108 October 2007
ISBN: 1-932582-83-5
www.cops.usdoj.gov

Cops p135 Pub

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cops p135 Pub

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.S.

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

This project was supported by cooperative agreement

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about

• Understand basic problem-oriented policing

• Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the

• Are willing to consider new ways of doing police

• Understand the value and the limits of research

• Are willing to work with others to find effective

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a policing

These guides have drawn on research findings and police

experience common problems. In a world that is becoming

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the research

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide

For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit

• the Problem-Specific Guides series

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the

The project team that developed the guide series

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and

Cynthia E. Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS

The Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Responses to the Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Appendix A: Summary of General Considerations and Responses to

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

The Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover

This guide examines the problem of pedestrian-vehicle

Pedestrian injuries and fatalities are but one aspect of the

• vehicle-vehicle traffic crashes

Some of these related problems are covered in other guides in

General Description of the Problem

Pedestrian-vehicle crashes are a major problem in the

The times and days pedestrians are most at risk of injury

Pedestrian-vehicle crashes also tend to concentrate at certain

• The majority of pedestrian-vehicle crashes (60 percent

• Seventy-four percent of pedestrian-vehicle crashes occur

The patterns mentioned above are general and based on

Factors Contributing to Pedestrian Injuries and

Understanding the factors that contribute to your

No single factor is completely responsible for the problem of

Local analysis may reveal unique situations, not on this

drivers who operate in ways that make it difficult for them

Figure 1 also lists multiple specific causes of pedestrian-

Vehicle & Driver Physical Environment

Figure 1: Pedestrian-vehicle crash triangle and specific causes of crashes

Unsafe pedestrian behavior is a major factor in pedestrian injuries

Pedestrian jaywalking. Specifically, jaywalking is often cited as

• walking against a pedestrian walk signal

In addition to jaywalking, other unsafe pedestrian behavior could

• failing to yield (both drivers and pedestrians)

Jaywalking is often considered to be an urban problem. In

Pedestrians, vehicles, and the physical environment. The interactions

Despite the link between jaywalking and pedestrian injuries

One reason why police might be reluctant to enforce

In addition to jaywalking’s being a low-priority police

Although jaywalking contributes to many pedestrian injuries

With that said, the following sections describe several factors

Pedestrian perceptions of risk. Some pedestrians might

Distracted pedestrians are also at higher risk. For instance,

Pedestrian consumption of alcohol. Drunken driving